Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky


 * 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 SandyGeorgia 23:40, 29 March 2009.

Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky

 * Nominator(s): Jonyungk (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because it meets FA criteria in bredth, depth and overall quality after going through a thorough copyedit and GA review. The article's status is currently GA. Jonyungk (talk) 05:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

'''TEcH. Review'''
 * Fix the disambiguation links and Dead external links are up to speed, as found with the link checker tools in the toolbox at the right.
 * Please explain as links were checked during copyediting and GA review. Jonyungk (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Click the first link at the right in the toolbox, that generates the disambiguation links located in the article. They need to be disambiguated to a specific article. Some references redirect to dead links, they need to be fixed accordingly.--Best,  ₮ RU  C Ө   23:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize, but I still don't understand how to check. Click each link witht he right button? This gives me the properties for each link. Is this what you mean? Jonyungk (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you see the toolbox at the right? Click the first link which says "disambig links". This generates all the disambiguation links located in this article. These should not be in the article, thus you need to properly direct the links to a direct article. Read WP:DABS for more instructions if you still don't understand. In addition, some of the references are dead external links, as in when you click the link of a reference, the website does not have that page available anymore. Which is what the 3rd link in the toolbox does. All the red ones are dead links, which can be fixed using the link at the right (3rd one).--Best,  ₮ RU  C Ө   23:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have fixed or aliminated all questionable internal links and all but one external link, which I cannot find in the article itself and is questionable rather than dead. Jonyungk (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref formatting, checked with the WP:REFTOOLS script, is up to speed
 * The following refs (code pasted below) are duplicated and appear more than once in the ref section, use ref name instead.
 * Brown, Man and Music, 431-5; Holden, 373-400.
 * Only one ref for the above was found; albeiit used in two separate sections, they were already linked. Refs mentioned below have been corrected. Jonyungk (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Brown, New Grove (1980), 18:628-9.
 * Schonberg, 367.
 * The following ref name is used more than once to name different refs, it should only name one ref
 * brhosu --Best,  ₮ RU  C Ө   15:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Per above, this was used for one ref in two separate places. Jonyungk (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That shouldn't happen, you don't need to duplicated that ref, use --Best,  ₮ RU  C Ө   23:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Were these done?--Best,  ₮ RU  C Ө   02:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. They are done. Jonyungk (talk) 12:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment How come the note about Alexander II being assassinated is done as a citation rather than a footnote like the ones in the lead? Alientraveller (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Check again. It's a footnote now. Jonyungk (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strongly Support I thoroughly reviewed this article and I saw no problems whatsoever with it. Lets  drink  Tea  02:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 *  Comment, leaning to Support: My concerns have been fully met. Could the above reviewer say where this review took place, as I am unable to find it from PR or GAR?
 * I was involved during February with some heavy copyediting. Since then much work has taken place, although I still recognise some of my ringing phrases. I have been looking at other aspects of the article, in particular the formats of citations, and have a number of queries:-


 * [5] Why is this format different from that of other the Holden citations?
 * [33], [34] and [35} are online citations that are not correctly formatted. See [37] for correct fromat. Minimum information is title, publisher and access date.
 * [46] and [48] Which Steinburg book do these refer to?
 * [61] Puzzlingly overcomplex and uninformative - where would I go to verify the information in the text?
 * [83] This is uncited information contained in a footnote. It should be cited in the normal way
 * [105} Why is this format different from that of the other Volkov citations?
 * If this article is promoted it will I think be the first composer biography to be featured, and will therefore act as a model for others which may follow. It is important, therefore, to get all the details right. I will return to the article shortly, with a few further comments. Overall, though, it is looking pretty impressive. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All the above mentioned have been corrected. Dmitri Shostakovich is actually a featured article, but I agree that details are important. BTW, thanks again for your help on the copyediting. Several have mentioned the summary you wrote for the beginning of the article, which is some of the best writing I have seen on Wikipedia to date. Jonyungk (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Further comments: A few more points, after a full second reading:-
 * Some prose glitches, but I think Graham (below) has picked up most of these. He's pretty good at spotting these things (he always finds something in my articles) so I'll leave that to him.
 * I think the subsection heading "Adolescent years" is inappropriate, because it takes Tchaikowsky up to the age of 28 - more than half his lifetime, in fact. I suggest that you either change the heading or, better perhaps, treat the last paragraph as a separate subsection and call it "Music student" or "Emerging composer" or some such. But don't leave him as an aging adolescent.
 * Relationship with the Five: The section begins: "As Tchaikovsky became Rubinstein's best known student, he was initially considered by association as a natural target for attack by the nationalistic music group known as The Five, especially as fodder for César Cui's criticism." As yet we have insufficient context to fully understand this information. The Five have been alluded to in the lead, but they haven't been properly introduced, and the reader is unaware at this point why Tchaikovsky's relationship with Rubinstein made him a target for attack by the Five.  So I think you need to change the start of the section to something like: "Rubinstein's western musical orientation brought him the opposition of the nationalistic group of musicians known as "The Five". As Rubinstein's best-known pupil, Tchaikovsky was treated as a natural target for attack by the group, especially as fodder..." etc.
 * When you talk about the "conservative faction at the Conservatory", make it clear you mean the St Petersburg Conservatory.
 * The opening to the "Mature composer" section could do with a bit of reworking, as at the moment it is overly repetitive of what we've just read in the previous section. The sections should move gracefully into each other.

I'll be ready to give full support if you can address these points, and also Graham's prose issues. One last thing relevant to the article—I wish I had been aware of this before, as it illustrates how low Tchaikowsky's international standing had fallen in the first part of the 20th century. He doesn't get an article in the 14th Encyclopedia Britannica (1932). Not a mention. All the members of the Five have articles, as do such enduring non-Russian composers as Johann Joseph Fux and Albert Coates. But nothing of Tchaikowsky, even in the articles of his contemporaries. A non-person – how times change. Brianboulton (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Damn! I've has to scratch my comment above, because someone's just told me he is in there, spelt Tschaikovsky. I am mortified – I thought that was a really clever point. Sorry:( Brianboulton (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * At least the transliteration we are stuck with now is not as bad as that one :-) Graham.Graham Colm Talk 21:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * All your points as well as Graham's have been adressed and your comments, as always, appreciated. Jonyungk (talk) 20:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have switched to full support. Well done. Brianboulton (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Conditional Support - It's a pity that we seem stuck with a bad transliteration of the composer's name, but at least this is explained well in the footnotes. I too looked for the thorough review mentioned above, but I could not find it. Anyhow, I spotted a few minor problems: I enjoyed reading this thought-provoking article, thank you. Graham Colm Talk 14:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The rather coy "same-sex" practices seems odd, particularly as it links to homosexuality via a redirect. Why not just say homosexual and be done with it?
 * Here, Franz Becker made occasional visits to the School as a token music teacher, and gave lessons. - One is left wondering what else a teacher would do other than "give lessons".
 * I had to stop and think about this sentence: Tchaikovsky's servant Aleksei Sofronov and his nephew, Vladimir "Bob" Davydov, have been cited as romantic interests. Whose nephew was he?
 * Here Some previously suppressed letters, where Tchaikovsky openly speaks out about his homosexuality, have been published in Russian - suppressed by whom?
 * Here: They became infatuated, and were engaged to be married,[33] He dedicated his Romance in F minor for piano, Op. 5, to her.  - either the comma should be a full-stop or the aitch should be lower case.
 * There is a similar problem here: He declared his intention to marry in a letter to his brother;[39] There followed Tchaikovsky's ill-starred marriage to one of his former composition students, Antonina Miliukova. - why the semi-colon?
 * Here "wanted" would be better than "wished": she wished to commission some chamber pieces from him" - unless you say "she expressed a wish to
 * This section is odd: On March 23, 1881, Nikolai Rubinstein died in Paris. Tchaikovsky was holidaying in Rome, and he went immediately to Paris to pay his respects to his greatly respected mentor, but arrived too late for the funeral (although he was part of a group of people who saw Rubinstein's coffin off on a train back to Russia). - Where was the funeral???
 * Can this sentence be merged with the paragraph above In 1893, the University of Cambridge in Britain awarded Tchaikovsky an honorary Doctor of Music degree - it reads like an unrelated afterthought.
 * Here Because of its formal innovation plus the overwhelming emotional content of its outer movements - the "plus" really cheapens the article. Why not use a simple elegant "and"?
 * I was irritated by the recurring reference to "Dr. David Brown". I know a Dr. David Brown - he's a virologist. Can we just have "Brown" after the first occurrence?
 * Lastly, I know we have the separate "Death of" article, but it would be good to add one sentence here that tells us where he is buried.
 * All these points have been addressed accordingly. Thank you for your comments. Jonyungk (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Excellent. Comprehensive, well sourced, written and illustrated . Its great to see the article brough forward in this condition, well done to those involved. Ceoil (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose (WP:WIAFA#3)&mdash;almost all the images fail to provide the information for verification of PD status. Some are niggling but others prove to be more concerning.
 * File:Piano Concerto No. 1 (Tchaikovsky).png: I am ignorant in music, so was this reproduced by ear, or transcribed from one of Tchaikovsky's scores? When was the first non-Tchaikovsky performance&mdash;a concert conducted or produced by Tchaikovsky is not considered the first "publication"&mdash;of this score (hence establishing its "publication")?
 * File:Tchaik3.jpg: this was taken in 1892, which means that a 30-year-old photographer at that time could still be a doddering (but alive) 80-year-old in 1942. Where is the proof that he or she had died 100 years before?  Since this is a private photo, the best bet is to prove that it was published before 1923, or in a foreign (to US) publication during 1927–77 that had not complete copyright formalities with the US.
 * File:Tchaikovsky with wife Antonina Miliukova.jpg: same as above. Private photo taken on 24 July 1877.  Who said the photographer has died 70 years ago?
 * File:Tchai Cambridge.jpg: Taken in 1893, in which pre-1923 publication was this printed? A site points out that this picture is found in Warrack's Tchaikovsky (1973); since this book is referenced in this article, does it state the photographer?  Very likely, this is a UK copyright (what with Cambridge and such), and UK-PD is mainly focused on the 70-year since author death.  Furthermore, since this is an illustrated biography (some of which are in colour), could it not be used to help fill out the information for other photos?
 * The pre-1923 publication would have been any newspsper or other publication that might have covred the event, either at the time or later, and possibly printed the photo to accompany the story. At least that was my assumption at the time the image was found. Jonyungk (talk) 15:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * They might not have printed such a photo as well. For all we know, this could be a private photo taken by a student during the ceremony that only got published several decades after the event.  As much as I have searched through Google, none of the pre-1973 books have printed this picture, even though they have mentioned Tchaikovsky's degree at Cambridge (and there may be good reason why).  As said, Warrack's book (referenced for this article) should be consulted for any information (if it has any) on the images that are in this article.  Jappalang (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Russia-Moscow-Cathedral of Christ the Saviour-8.jpg: to avoid any problem of Vitt Guziy suddenly coming down on any innocent publisher, "the friend" should grant an OTRS. We have File:Katedra Chrystusa Zbawiciela w Moskwie 2.jpg and File:Moscow - Cathedral of Christ the Saviour.jpg that do not have such problem.  The best, however, is to use File:Cathedral of Christ the Saviour 1903.jpg&mdash;taken before its demolition; hence, the most authentic.
 * This image has been replaced per your suggestion. Jonyungk (talk) 15:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Nadezhda von Meck.jpeg: is this scanned from Evelyn or Alexander Waugh's book? When was this taken?  Photographersdirect.com claims the colourised version is "based in the UK".  Does this mean the original is taken by a UK citizen and should be treated per British laws&mdash;70 years pma; hence, the photographer's death date again comes into play.
 * The source listed is La musique comme vous ne l'avez jamais écoutée - Editions Gründ - p67 Jonyungk (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Look at the links provided. Both Alexander's and Evelyn's books are titled that; which book is it, or are they the same?  Jappalang (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Editions Gründ is apparently Evelyn, going by your links. The photo has been removed, in any case. Jonyungk (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Tchaikovsky-Pathetique-Symphony-4mov.JPG: missing all the basic information (source, author, date)
 * File:Sleeping beauty cast.jpg: source (where this jpg came from), please! Is this picture truly of the original cast in that production?
 * File:Vzevolozhskys costume sketch for Nutcracker.jpg: Wikipedia is not a source. Where was this image obtained from?
 * Wikimedia Commons. Jonyungk (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * By source, we mean where did the uploader obtain the image from. Any form of Wikipedia (in all its language versions and mirrors) and Commons is not applicable as a source.  Jappalang (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * File:SB film03.JPG: what is the point of this screenshot in an article about a music composer? Where is the critical commentary for this in this article?  Where is the FUR?
 * It is a screenshot of a ballet which Tchaikovsky wrote and his impact on ballet is mentioned in the section where the screenshot appears. Jonyungk (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That is decorative in the form of "this is a scene from the The Sleeping Beauty", and is not a good rationale for fair-use. Non-free images claimed for fair-use are to help readers further understand a significant idea written in the article, i.e. text cannot fully express what is described and requires illustration, e.g. art styles, subjective opinions, concepts, etc.  Jappalang (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Awaiting feedback. Jappalang (talk) 05:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of the images were taken either from related articles on Wikipedia or from Wikimedia Commons, so PD was assumed. I confess my ignorance about these details. Should I withdraw my nomination of this article? This question is not asked in a fit of pique, but I am honestly blindsided when it comes to these questions. Jonyungk (talk) 15:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of the concerns over the images can be resolved through investigation. As pointed out, books are one way to go.  When investigation is exhausted, images that lack information to verify their status should, at the least, be removed from the article.  Jappalang (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All images questioned above have been removed. Jonyungk (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That is drastic. Some images could have been "saved"; I am continuing this ("rescue" attempt&mdash;finding out if they are definite public domain image and such) on the talk page if anyone is interested.  Do you not have the Warrack book?  Jappalang (talk) 00:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would greatly appreciate your continued efforts and would be open to re-adding whatever photos are definitely in public domain. I do not have Warrack available to me currently but know where I can find it and will search it out. Jonyungk (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is what I found in Warrrack:
 * File:Tchaik3.jpg (Tchaikovsky with Bob Davydov): Novosti Press Agency, from the Tchaikovsky House-Museum at Klin. It is also shown at this page on tchaikovsky-research.net.
 * File:Tchaikovsky with wife Antonina Miliukova.jpg: Collection of John Warrack. It is also shown at this page on tchaikovsky-research.net.
 * File:Nadezhda von Meck.jpeg: Novosti Press Agency, from the Tchaikovsky House-Museum at Klin. It is listed in RIA Nostrovi archives as
 * File:Tchai Cambridge.jpg: Novosti Press Agency, archives. It is listed in its archives at
 * File:Sleeping beauty cast.jpg: Novosti Press Agency. Warrack claims on p. 224 of Tchaikovsky that this is a picture of the principals from the first production of The Sleeping Beauty.
 * Novosti Press Agency is listed on Gooogle and Wikipedia as RIA Novosti at this link. There is no indication as to whether any of these photos are in public domain. Jonyungk (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Question Do we need the see also section. It is entirely redundant, I would imagine anybody that gets that far would be easily able to find thoes links anyway either earlier in the page or at the foot, in the cats. I see these sections as repetitive fluff, and don't want to set precedent on what is likely going to be a high profile FA if passed. Ceoil (talk) 09:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This section has been removed. Jonyungk (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. My support stands ;) Ceoil (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Notes: there's a mismatch of open and close parens in the first sentence: I'm not sure how to best fix this:
 * Ilyich Tchaikovsky† (Russian: Пётр Ильич Чайковский) 7 May 1840 [O.S. 25 April] – 6 November 1893 [O.S. 25 October])†† ...
 * There is one open paren, but two close parens. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This error has been fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. Jonyungk (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, pls review WP:EMDASHes vs. WP:ENDASHes in page ranges, WP:MOS spacing, and WP:PUNC logical punctuation. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you please be more specific as to what errors you are spotting. To the best of my knowledge, these guidelines are being followed. Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you review my sample edits? Ellipses have spaces, there were emdashes in page ranges, and it's not clear that logical punctuation is used.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed your sample edits. My confusion as to whether emdashes versus endashes are preferred on WP. Elipses are, at least for the most part, being used correctly and yes, I am using logical punctuation. This is not to say that I do not appreciate your input and efforts; on the contrary, I appreciate andd thank you for both. Jonyungk (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Have a look at Wp:DASH; page ranges are separated by WP:ENDASHes, not WP:EMDASHes. I'll go back and see if you got all of them.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.