Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Parsifal/1

Parsifal

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Parsifal/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Delisted. Real4jyy (talk) 13:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

This 2007 listing contains significant uncited material in the "Performance history" and "Music" sections, failing GA criterion 2b). The "Synopsis" section should also be rewritten to comply with MOS:PLOT, part of criterion 1b). AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Could you elaborate on your plot concern? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * At over 1,600 words, it is rather lengthy, and should probably be cut down (I note it was previously a gargantuan 4,500 words before streamlined it last year). I am also unsure about the execution of the interspersing of musical details.  AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I think given the subject area noting how the music integrates with the plot is appropriate? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Eh, perhaps you're right. Still, that is the least of the issues outlined above... &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * This article is kind of all over the place in balance and cohesion; the Music section is downright painful to read. The article (and particularly the music section) would do significantly better if modeled after Brian the structure work on Das Rheingold, which is definitely more worthy of GA than the current Parsifal article. The Interpretation and influence section should also be rethought, it is perhaps not summarized enough.  Aza24  (talk)   23:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)