Talk:Piano Quartet (Strauss)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 15:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy to review the article.

Lead section/infobox

 * Link chamber music; movements
 * ✅ intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * around is redundant (and not included in the infobox)
 * ✅ intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The lead section is imo over-concise. Bearing in mind that the lead section should “stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies” I would double it in size to ensure the following points are included:
 * 1. Strauss was later embarrassed by its stylistic similarity to Brahms
 * 2. The piece won a competition when Strauss submitted it the year it was composed
 * 3. the composer playing the piano part during the premiere
 * 4. the Piano Quartet never rivalled the success of the Cello Sonata (1883) or the Violin Sonata (1887), Strauss cherished the piece and programmed it regularly until the 1920s


 * ✅. I'm hesitant to include that Strauss was embarrassed, because that seems to be the opinion by one of the sources. intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Understood. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Link Op.; TrV in the infobox
 * ✅ intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

1 Background

 * Link chamber music; Piano quartet; Berliner Tonkünstlerverein (Deutscher Tonkünstlerverband); marks (Mark (currency)); Munich
 * ✅. It seems that the Deutscher Tonkünstlerverband is not the same organisation as the Berliner Tonkünstlerverein. intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The Piano Quartet – the text in the main article should be independent of the lead section, so amend this to 'The Piano Quartet by Richard Strauss' (linked)
 * ✅ intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * just 20 – why just?
 * ✅ intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Amend 1885–86 to '1885–1886'
 * ✅ intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * his piano quartets in G minor and in C minor – it might be helpful for readers if the date for these were included, so show how soon before Strauss’s work they were composed
 * ✅ intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The links to in G minor and C minor do not lead where you expect them to.
 * ✅ intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This suggests; presumably sound editorial, you could perhaps add who suggested it, and who presumed.
 * ✅ intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * period goes after the brackets
 * ✅ intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * the Duke – is not capitalized (twice)
 * ✅ intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * the completion - what completion?
 * ✅ intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The premiere – it’s pedantic, but I would amend to 'The premiere of the piano quartet'
 * ✅ intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

2 Structure

 * approximately is redundant
 * ✅ intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

2.1 Allegro

 * Link triplets (Tuplet)
 * ✅ intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * notes that should read 'noted that', as the author is not alive
 * ✅ intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

2.2 Scherzo. Presto

 * Link variations (Variation (music))
 * ✅ intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comma after playful scherzo? (minor point)
 * ✅ intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Could pounding octave drops be rephrased?
 * ✅ intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * composed a year later – I would amend to 'composed in 1886' (which is what the source says, and is more accurate)
 * ✅ intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

2.3 Andante

 * Link F minor; C minor; syncopated (Syncopation)
 * ✅ intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You need to mention who Hans von Bülow was in the text
 * ✅ intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * elegiac – relating to an elegy, or melancholic? Readers might not know
 * Hm, that's what the source says. Perhaps both? intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Understood, but I wasn't clear on which meaning the word had. Minor point. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * thirty – 30 (minor point)
 * ✅ intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

2.4 Finale. Vivace

 * more Schumann than Brahms seems to be missing a word
 * ✅ intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

3 Reception and legacy

 * Link Tonkünstlerverband (German Wikipedia), use this
 * Music critic Arthur Johnstone of the Manchester Guardian wrote could be amended to 'The Manchester Guardian reported that' (as the journalist is not noteworthy)
 * ✅ intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * the Piano Quartet – 'his Piano Quartet' sounds better imo
 * ✅ intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * highly successful - why highly?
 * ✅ intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "definitely not an obliging or ingratiating piece". - it’s not clear what Strauss was implying here, could this be clarified?
 * This is tricky. Strauss wrote "durchaus kein gefälliges und einschmeichelndes Stück" and the Jost translation is quite literal. I'm not sure how this can be clarified further.
 * Why not quote Strauss in German (with the translation included as well)? That way he gets the blame for saying something a bit incomprehensible, and it doesn't look like bad editing. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * 22 May 1886, - no comma? (minor point)
 * I've reworded it a bit, hopefully it is more clear now. intforce (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * also performed – why also?
 * ✅ intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In a report, seems redundant. Ditto rather
 * ✅ intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing after the 1920s? Readers might be interested to know if the piece is still in the repertoire
 * Sadly I couldn't find any reliable sources for this. It seems that the work is performed rather infrequently, Presto Music lists only 13 professional recordings. intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I would be tempted to include the recordings tally, just so it looks as if an effort has been made to fill the gap. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added a recordings section. Given the number of recent recordings, it seems like the work is being performed more and more now, but that of course would be OR. intforce (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

More comments to follow. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

4 References

 * Link Kennedy; Richard Pohl
 * ✅ intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The Notes and Sources sections should be level 3 titles (MOS:HEADINGS)
 * ✅ intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Replace the url in Gilliam (1997) with the link from Google Books (this)
 * ✅ intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * How do you know Earshot is a reliable source to use to verify the text?
 * ✅ Replaced intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * (not GA) The sources are not formatted in a consistent way, let me know if you want comment about this. Also, I would collapse the Richard Strauss template (change the template to  )
 * Sorry, what is the issue with the formatting? intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There's no issue with the references as far as GAN is concerned, but if you want to make them consistent and fully informative, then:
 * Ref 1 (Gilliam & Youmans) Link Oxford University Press / Amend Gilliam, Bryan to 'Gilliam, Bryan Randolph'
 * Ref 2 (Jost) Link Peter Jost from the German Wikipedia ( Peter Jost )
 * Ref 3 (Gilliam) The OCLC is not required
 * Ref 4 (Böhmer) Add a retrieval date
 * Ref 5 (Kennedy) To be consistent with the other references, the title should be 'Piano Quartet in C minor, Op 13' / Add a retrieval date
 * Ref 6 (Bromberger) Expand the linked LA Phil to its full name
 * Ref 7 (Steinitzer) Add OCLC=477858487 / Link Schuster & Loeffler from the German Wikipedia ( Schuster & Loeffler ) / Amend author, as his name was Max Steinitzer (see this)
 * Ref 8 ("Theater, Musik, Konzerte etc".) Replace citation with
 * Ref 9 (Pohl) Replace citation with
 * Ref 10 (Johnstone) Add url=https://archive.org/details/musicalcriticism00johniala/page/n9/mode/2up / Add via=Internet Archive / Link Manchester University Press / Add oclc=1049669158

If you don't use the above this time, if you want I can help put them in after the article passes GA. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

On hold
No serious issues here. I'm putting the article on hold for a week until 12 January to allow time for the issues raised to be addressed. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I hope to have addressed the issues. intforce (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's close to GA, or there already, just a few points to complete. Great work! Amitchell125 (talk) 07:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Passing
Passing now, congratulations on producing a great little article. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)