Wikipedia:Peer review/Tchaikovsky and the Five/archive1

Tchaikovsky and the Five

 * 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 would like to bring this article to FA status and would appreciate feedback that would help bring the quality of this article to that level.

Thanks, Jonyungk (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This is an interesting article - I knew Tchaikovsky had to deal with various issues in his life, but never realized there was anything like peer pressure to be somehow more Russian. I am obviously not an expert on this topic, and unfortunatley found the lead and parts of the article confusing / hard to follow. With an eye to FAC, here are some suggestions for improvement.
 * As noted above, the lead confused me. There are some more minor issues with it (Tchaikovsky should not be both bold and linked per WP:LEAD, I think that all of the names of the members of the Five should be clearly listed in the lead, the article on The Five uses a different two word Russian name for them (I think the Russian word for Mighty is missing and it is just the word for handful, there is not a clear idea of the time period involved (especially in the first paragraph), and two members of the Five are not mentioned by name in the lead (Borodin and Mussorgsky )) but I think the real problem is that the article needs to make clearer in the lead just what the article is about, and do a better job of providing context for the reader who does not already know a great deal about the topic.
 * See below. Jonyungk (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The lead of the article on "The Five" does a decent job of identifying the members and their philosophy and it seems to me that the first paragraph here could start with some sort of topic sentence defining the article (In late 19th century Russia, Pyotr Illych Tchaikovsky and a group of composers known as The Five had differing opinions on the nature of classical Russian music, specifically if it should follow Western or Russian themes) Then explain who Tchaikovsky and the five were and their programs, then summarize their history in the other two or three paragraphs.
 * I've incorporated your opening sentence in the current first paragraph of the lead for now. Meanwhile, I'll play with the lead in my sandbox and come up with something different for a opening paragraph. Jonyungk (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I find this murkiness continues in the rest of the article - for example the first subsection in the "Before Tchaikovsky" section starts with the word Tchaikovsky and end with a quote talking about dedications to his memory! I find it is usually better to work chronologically.
 * I think a mini-lead/summary immediately after the heading "Before Tchaikovsky" could help clarify things. Jonyungk (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The article on the Five says they met from 1856 to 1870 so shouldn't there be a section on them and their history? The article's history seems to start with Rubinstein and his return in 1858, but apparently the Five were already two years old as a group then.
 * There is an entire article on The Five and their history, but yes, there should be something included in this article, as well. Jonyungk (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Similarly, there is very little background on Tchaikovsky - we are simply told he matriculated in 1866.
 * Likewise, there is an entire article on Tchaikovsky, but yes, there should be something included in this article, as well. Jonyungk (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The images are very nice and the references seem fine.
 * Sorry this is not more specific - to be honest, I was a bit put off by the article. The writing is decent but I felt like I had landed in the midst of a long Russian novel with no idea who all the characters were or what the plot was in the 250 pages I had missed.

Comments from Ricardiana

Doing....

Prose


 * The opening sentence is a little hard to follow, not because there's anything wrong with it per se, but b/c I expected to know by the first sentence what "Tchaikovsky and the Five" was, and it took longer than the first sentence to set that up. Could you sum up the relationship in a new intro. sentence? Maybe something like "Tchaikovsky's relationship with a group known as 'The Five' centered on issues of ..." (that's not very good, but some kind of summation of the issues at hand would be nice).
 * Done. See above regarding Ruhrfisch's sugggested opening. Jonyungk (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I should have read Ruhrfisch more carefully. Looks good. Ricardiana (talk) 04:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As Tchaikovsky became Rubinstein's best-known student, he was initially - change in verb tense. Should be "had become".
 * Done. Jonyungk (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * especially as fodder for César Cui's criticism - this clause introduces yet another new player whom general readers won't know. Maybe some re-casting of the lead is in order to introduce people, or perhaps you could leave some names out - this might be one.
 * Done. Cui is now introdiced in the opening paragraph, along with the other names in The Five. Jonyungk (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * He remained friendly - I think it's better to start paragraphs with the proper name and use the pronouns for subsequent sentences.
 * Good point.


 * it was to Tchaikovsky that he turned  - "he turned"
 * Not sure what you mean&mdash;get rid of "that"? Jonyungk (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry - I meant "he turned to Tchaikovsky" - ever since my dissertation chair told me that her first journal article came back as "revise and resubmit", with the comment "never begin a sentence with 'it is' or 'there are'!!!!", I jump to change those. Ricardiana (talk) 04:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Jonyungk (talk) 04:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * were all thoroughly Russian in their sentiments - does this mean they were patriotic, or that their ideas partook of Essential Russian-ness, or what? I wasn't sure. (Note: as I read on, this became clearer. Maybe it would be better to start this section with the problem of Russianness, and then assert the Russianness of T's sentiments.)
 * however much they may have tried, it was impossible for Russians such as these to suppress either part of their identity sounds POV. Citation?
 * Done. Jonyungk (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * act like and have the same manners and attitudes as Europeans This seems redundant to me.
 * Changed to "act like Europeans." Jonyungk (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * to actually define Russianness in classical music and how it should actually  - I'm not sure you need both, or either, of the "actually"s.
 * which was novel in that it was the first  --> "which was the first"
 * Done. Jonyungk (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Russian opera in the Russian repertoire  Is there a distinction here - were Russian operas spurned in Russia? I'm just curious.
 * French and Italian operas were preferred by the aristocracy before Tchaikovsky and the Five. Jonyungk (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * He also came to realize the essentiality Neologisms have their place, but I'm not sure that "essentiality"'s is here. Could you say "importance" or "necessity"?
 * One thing that should be stressed Sounds POV.
 * This has now been cited. Jonyungk (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Liszt and Wagner were not included. No need to wikilink their names again.
 * Done. Jonyungk (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The campaign became petty, ugly and Anti-Semitic I don't doubt any of these statements, but I think they should be cited; otherwise, they sound POV.
 * It was cited&mdash;the parenthetical that follows, which has the citation, was supposed to be part of this sentence. The period between the two sentences has been removed. Jonyungk (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

...more coming. Ricardiana (talk) 03:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Just because Rubinstein did not join combat, did not mean that Cui did not stop attacking - sounds a little casual. Could be something like "Although R ... C ..."
 * Done. Jonyungk (talk) 04:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The review's effect on the sensitive composer was devastating. Should have a citation (although really, what didn't devastate poor Tchaikovsky?)
 * Done. The passage is now cited. Jonyungk (talk) 04:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It can be easy to imagine Tchaikovsky's reaction - the "it" issue again. Basically, starting this way is often just a little wordy. "T's reaction can easily be imagined" is a little shorter - although now, come to think, it sounds a little POV.
 * Done. Reworked this sentence and the following one into one sentence and removed the POV elements. Jonyungk (talk) 04:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * wishing to remove themselves from what they now saw as Balakirev's stifling influence I think (this could just be me) this might read a little better with a visual parenthetical - something like "wishing to remove themselves from Balakirev's influence, which they now saw as stifling, and go..."
 * Done. Jonyungk (talk) 04:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In 1869 Tchaikovsky - I had to look back up to see that T sent the letter in 1867, and thus to figure out that you had jumped to the end of the two years you mention in the previous sentence. It might be helpful to give a little reminder here - "at the end of that period" or something.
 * Done. Jonyungk (talk) 04:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The para. starting Balakirev's entrance into his creative life was extremely well-timed seems to jump back in time. Could it be placed earlier?
 * It doesn't seem that strong a paragraph and, despite the in-line cites, seems close to POV. I've removed it entirely for right now but can always bring it back later. Jonyungk (talk) 04:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The first part of "Writing Romeo" seems to cover some of the same ground as the end of the last section. Maybe amalgamate?
 * Taken care of with the removal pf the previous paragraph. Jonyungk (talk) 04:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * than in the music he was conducting I think another verb here is needed - "listening" probably
 * Where was this? I can't seem to find it. Jonyungk (talk) 05:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry - it's in the "learning from failure" section. Do you have a PC? You can find it by doing control + F. Ricardiana (talk) 01:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * offering as proof that Tchaikovsky did not write - normally, I think it's better to avoid "the fact that", but here I think it might be helpful - the sentence sounds a little abrupt
 * Done. Jonyungk (talk) 05:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Finishing ....


 * writing later, "I was a dilettante and knew nothing,..." -- punctuation at the end could just be a period, or ellipses.
 * Before Rimsky-Korsakov went to the Conservatory, in March 1868, Tchaikovsky wrote - does the date refer to R-K's going to the Conservatory, or to Tchaikovsky's words/
 * Tchaikovsky's notice, worded in precisely a way to find favour within the Balakirev circle - sounds awkward to me. Could be "worded in such a way" or something like that.
 * The comparison of Mussorgsky to T seems a little off-topic to me.
 * Berlioz had claimed old age and ill health when the program was suggested to him I think this needs a little more explanation - he claimed this to get out of doing the program?

Some general comments -


 * I noticed a lot of dashes, not including the ones in quotations. Each individual one was fine, but the overall number seemed unusually high.
 * Some of the block quotations are quite long and could be shortened. Also, there's a lot of white space when they are next to a picture - that doesn't look quite right. Maybe removing the frames around the quotations would help.
 * Terms are sometimes linked repeatedly - the Manfred Symphony was one example.