Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bedřich Smetana/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 22:16, 7 July 2009.

Bedřich Smetana

 * Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 22:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Outside the Czech Republic, Smetana is thought of as a minor composer; in his homeland he is regarded as a giant. His life's struggles are reflected in the troubled visage that watches us from the pages of the article. Fascinating music, fascinating man; I hope I've done him justice. Brianboulton (talk) 22:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Image review: Remarkably good, given the huge number of images. I was hoping (well, not really hoping) to trip you up with File:Göteborg.jpg, on the basis that the copyright status of the statue isn't addressed on the page, but Sweden's freedom of panorama laws seem to make this unnecessary. The only issue that I could actually find was with File:Praha Barricades 1848.jpg, which claims to be in the public domain on the basis that the author has been dead for at least 70 years, but which does not seem to include any author information. In any event, it was published before 1923, so it's in the public domain in the United States on that basis; might you consider either changing the tag or recording author information? Mind you, the 1848 publication date makes it virtually certain that the author has been deceased for at least 70 years. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 01:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The 1848 date is the basis for the assertion that the author has been dead for at least 70 years. If it was from 1880 onwards, the 70 year pma might come into dispute, but publishing in 1840s is a certainty for PD by age.  Jappalang (talk) 01:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's reasonable. Do we have that 1880 rule codified somewhere (or is that in "real" law, instead of Wikipedia policy?)? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 01:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should clarify: "1880" is not a rule or law. It is a general "guideline" (more of common sense), inspired from somewhere in one of the Commons talk pages.  Basically the assumption is that a 20-year old created the work at the date of creation and he died at the age of 70&mdash;an allowance of 120 years since creation is likely enough for such a young creator to have passed away more than 70 years ago.  A stricter allowance is 140 years (which I tend to follow in my search for images); hence, any image created earlier than 1860–70 could qualify for PD-Old, anything later than that would deserve some investigation.  Jappalang (talk) 04:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Image comment - Images look good, file:Praha_Barricades_1848.jpg contains a lot of detail in a very small space, and none of it is clear as displayed, it may be better to choose a single frame, as a single image Fasach Nua (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If a single panel is used, the lower right corner appears to be on the Charles Bridge, where Smetana was during 1848. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have switched to the Charles Bridge panel; thanks to both of you for the suggestion. Brianboulton (talk) 09:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * Sources that are in languages other than English need to have that language noted in the reference
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * added appropriately. Brianboulton (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Support. This was already a fine article when I read it for peer review. Since then it has become even better, with many small gaps in knowledge filled and the writing improved still further. This article offeres a very full portrait of Smetana as both artist and person, highlighting much about his importance that I had not known beforehand while remaining very reader-friendly overall as a document. One point: this a long article but needs to be to include everything covered here, since Smetana lived such a rich life and did as much for his country as he did; however, the article reads much shorter than it actually is because it has been paced extraordinarily well, and I do not know how it could be shortened without doing harm to it. Overall, this is an excellent job and does represent the finest Wikipedia has to offer&mdash;well done. Jonyungk (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for those comments and for your help during the PR process. Brianboulton (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Support I also peer reviewed this and found one of the images on Flickr (and cropped it to the version used here). I think this fully meets all of the FA criteria and is an interesting and informative read too. Is there any sort of convention on how to name musical works? My only quibble is that some works use the Czech name with English translation following (i.e. Ma Vlast), others only the English translation (i.e. Triumphal symphony, The Bartered Bride). My guess is that the most common name in English is used in each case. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your support. I have indeed used the names by which the compositions are best-known in the English-speaking world. This includes Ma vlast, which is never to my knowledge performed as "My Fatherland"; I included the translation to give its meaning, not to indicate a title in use. There is a link to a list of Smetana's compositions, and this gives Czech titles for each work. Brianboulton (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Works for me - thanks for explaining that, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments Is there a relevant infobox that could be included? Also, I'm not sure if this is required or not for FAC, but could Persondata be added? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Usually infoboxes are not recommended for classical composers. Jonyungk (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article follows the practice adopted on all the major classical composer biographies - see those for Bach, Beethoven, Handel, Mozart, Tchaikowsky, Wagner etc. There is no FAC requirement for infoboxes. Brianboulton (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a specific reason why classical composers are the exception to all other biographies (from what I've seen) for not requiring an infobox? I'm just curious as to why one type of group doesn't need an infobox when the vast majority of biographies do. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is zero requirement in the MOS (or FAC) for an infobox. Joseph Priestley and John Knox are non-composer biography FAs without infoboxes, for example. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * For further clarification, see WP:Wikiproject Composers: "Current consensus among project participants holds that the use of currently-available biographical infoboxes is often counterproductive on composer biographies. They should not be used without first obtaining consensus on the article's talk page. This position is in line with that reached by the participants at the Classical Music Project and the Opera Project." I suggest that further discussion of this topic be taken there. Brianboulton (talk) 08:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just curious, thanks for the clarification. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Support: it would be bad form if I did not support after subjecting Brian through much hassles at the peer review. He has admirably resolved many concerns and polished the article from this to its current state, keeping in mind every criteria a Featured Article is supposed to be. I believe the article deserves the bronze star. Jappalang (talk) 11:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. For the record, your so-called "hassles were part of an exemplary peer review, and if this article is eventually promoted, much of the credit should go to you. Brianboulton (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Support: It was a great surprise when I saw Smetana as a FAC. I fixed the spelling of few Czech names and I think it meets the criteria. Before I support, I would like one issue to be fixed: The "naming" of Smetana's ancestry. "Bohemia" is a region in today's Czech Republic and at the time of Smetana's life (before the official formation of Czech Rep.), it was part of the Czech lands (the historical name of Czech Republic - the same territory). This could be compared to Bavaria (or any other region) in Germany - Bavaria existed in its form even before Germany itself was formed. The article uses frequently the word "Czech" (in association with the culture etc.), says that Smetana was "Bohemian", but does not explain the relation. "Bohemia(n)" is mentioned only in the lead and in the first paragraph of the first section. I think that it is a bit confusing and therefore should be fixed. There are two possibilities:
 * In the lead section and in the "Family background and childhood" section, we add "(today's Czech Republic)" behind the "Bohemia(n)", or
 * We change the first sentence to "Bedřich Smetana was a Czech composer...". A reason for this possibility is that Bohemia was a region in the actual Czech lands. For example Goethe was born in the region Hesse, but is still called a German polymath. He was born in Holy Roman Empire and died in German Confederation (Deutscher Bund), a loose league of 39 sovereign states. The second reason is that the nationalities of today's states are usually used for historical persons (even if the name of the region was different). Examples are even Renaissance Michelangelo or Leonardo da Vinci, who lived in Roman Empire, but are called Italian. On the top of this, in the Czech language, there is no difference between (/only one word for both) "Bohemian" and "Czech".--  LYKANTROP    ✉  13:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I hope the surprise at finding Smetana at FAC was a pleasant one. Thank you for correcting several Czech spellings; some of these errors were my own carelessness, others were due to some inconsistencies in the English language sources. On your point about Bohemian/Czech, I have adopted the second of your suggestions above - does this satisfy? Brianboulton (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. The article seems to be solid now.
 * ...Of course it was a pleasant surprise! The article is excellent. Enjoyable to read, informative, balanced and neutral.
 * Although compared to, lets say Beethoven's symphony no.9, Smetana's works may seem a bit "subtle", I really enjoy some of them :) Cheers--  LYKANTROP    ✉  18:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.