Wikipedia:Peer review/Nocturnes Op. 37 (Chopin)/archive1

Nocturnes Op. 37 (Chopin)

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to improve it to GA status. Is this article comprehensive enough yet? Also, does anyone have any other suggestions for improvements?

Thanks, Edward130603 (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments from Awadewit

Thanks for working on this article! I love Chopin's nocturnes! In my opinion, this article not comprehensive enough for GA yet (see below). Here are my suggestions for improvement:


 * The lead should be a summary of the entire article per WP:LEAD. Right now, it briefly introduces the pieces and then tells us a number of people's opinions on them. These opinions should probably be in a "reception" or "legacy" section. It might be a good idea to add any influence that the piece had on subsequent pieces to such a section.


 * It might be worth briefly describing what a nocturne is and how each piece fits that genre.


 * The "Analysis" section for 37.1 should not be linked to another website - it should be presented in sourced paragraphs on Wikipedia. This kind of musical analysis should be provided for both pieces.


 * In general, the prose of the article relies heavily on quotations. I would suggest paraphrasing more. The article also includes many phrases such as "huneker commented", which interrupt the flow of the prose. Paraphrasing will remove that cumbersome style.


 * How much Chopin scholarship have you looked into? I would imagine that there is quite a bit on his nocturnes - perhaps entire books. I'm a little concerned that each book I looked at was available for preview on Google Books. While Google Books is a good starting point for research, when it comes to music scholarship, you are inevitably going to have to go to a library. Most material simply isn't available for free on the internet, unfortunately.


 * As I was reading, I was wondering about the following:
 * What about the history of the composition? The lead mentions Chopin composed the pieces in 1838. Is there a connection with anything in his life?
 * What about the history of publication? How were the pieces initially published? I know Chopin tried to make money off of some of his pieces by slightly changing them. Did that happen with these? What later important editions exist?

I hope these are helpful comments! Awadewit (talk) 02:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments from Scott Free

Nice article, here's a few comments -

http://www.ivanmoravec.net/albums/al-9792332.html
 * To my knowledge, the following article is one of the few examples of an in-depth article on a specific classical music piece, it could be helpful for reference - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._3_(G%C3%B3recki)
 * How about a section on notable recordings and performances - are there any good CD reviews that comments on these pieces? Richter has an interesting take on the No.2 piece. I like the performances by Arrau, Rubinstein, and Moravec.
 * It would be nice to have a sound clip for No. 2
 * Here's a review that mentions the pieces-
 * Here's another site with some info on the pieces - http://www.chopinmusic.net/works/nocturnes/
 * The No. 1 goes by the name 'Les Soupirs', I believe.

Hope this helps, all the best. --Scott Free (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)