Talk:Allan Pettersson

"some of the longest single movement orchestral works ever written"

not a provable statement, or if it is, cite not just some critic's opinion but a survey of one-movement orchestral works or something that will go a way to - when it comes down to it, frankly, I don't think you can prove this; there might be a hoard of 30-hour one-movement orchestral works out there as unknown to us as Pettersson was unknown to most of us awhile back. It's most likely- in so far as the term "most likely" makes sense in this context (it doesn't really; statistics/probability don't play a role here) that they're at best mediocre, if so, unlike- in my opinion- the rather good (at least) Pettersson works; but sight and sound unseen we do not know anything about them, including whether or not they exist, and should stick with what we know. Even - rewriting hypothetically - "among the longest... yet performed" is a bit of a stretch since no one claims to know all public or private performances of all works ... I'd say drop the statement wholly, that it's fine in a promotional piece and very much not so on Wikipedia. Is anyone not clear on the difference and need explaining? Schissel | Sound the Note! 20:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree, this statement can't be proved. Pettersson's symphonies are also not listed in "Guinness World Records Book", like Brian's Gothic. So it's better to remove that part. 84.119.105.83 (talk) 11:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Gustaf or Gustav

"Official" Swedish sources, like Svenskt biografiskt lexikon and gravar.se spell his name "Gustaf Allan Pettersson". So Gustav is obviously not the correct spelling. 176.199.37.91 (talk) 11:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Allan Pettersson/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wretchskull (talk · contribs) 10:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I've read a fair bit about Pettersson and was delighted to find this at GAN. More comments later.

Lede

• The lede feels monotone and dull. These characteristics seem to resonate throughout the article here and there, unfortunately.
• Why is Pettersson important?

Add text.  Done --Grimes2 (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• The music and legacy sections could probably be better summarized in the lede.

 Done --G2

Early life

• Remove note 'a' and incorporate it into prose. I see this throughout the article.

 Done --G2

Later life

• "They did not have any children." Citation?

text removed, no source --G2

• Remove note 'c' and incorporate it into prose.

 Done --G2

Music

• "His symphonies end on common major or minor chords—but tonality, which depends on some sense, however attenuated, of tonal progression, is found mostly in slower sections: e.g., the openings and endings of his 6th and 7th symphonies, and the end of his 9th." Awkward phrasing and punctuation. This sentence could definitely be improved or perhaps be split into two sentences.

 Done --G2

• "Pettersson began composing songs and smaller chamber works in the 1930s." Citation?

See works in Discography/Other works section. --G2

Legacy

• Remove note 'h' and incorporate it into prose, perhaps along the lines of "The four orchestral sketches "... das Gesegnete, das Verfluchte" (1991) by Peter Ruzicka are a tribute Pettersson's life and work, quoting sketches of his unfinished Symphony No. 17."

 Done --G2

@Grimes2: Due to prose issues, we may need to put this article on hold, but hopefully we can tackle the criteria inch by inch. Ping me when you're done. Wretchskull (talk) 10:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Wretchskull: I'm  Done --Grimes2 (talk) 12:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

General

• Many sentences are dull and monotone, with paragraphs consisting of small one/two phrase sentences. As SlimVirgin used to say, "make him three-dimensional for the reader". I'm afraid the prose will weigh down on criteria no. 1 rather severely.

I've done my best. English is not my mother language.

• In terms of broadness, I see that time periods and events in his life take enormous leaps forward. I understand that there is a lack of scholarly attention to Pettersson, but I hope you've summarized everything available. AGF on broadness.
• The article has no ongoing discussions or edit wars, and is free from bias.
• Have you tried adding a picture of Pettersson? I understand that copyright is a bummer but you could tag it as fair use.

Yes, but the photographer did not reply. --G2

@Grimes2: See WP:NFC.

References

• No copyvio found
• Link books that are available on Internet Archive (make sure they have the same year of publishing as to not link to a different edition).
• There are 100 results on JSTOR when searching Allan Pettersson, and 359 results on Google Scholar. Perhaps significant?

Nothing usable. --G2

• Spotchecks:
  • Source for note 'e'?

 Done --G2

• • Checked dozens of OCLCs, looking good.
  • Aare, Leif (1978) is one of the best books about Pettersson that isn't cited once despite being in the bibliography section.

Sorry, don't have the book and I can't speak Swedish. --Grimes2 (talk) 12:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Grimes2: Ping me when you're done. Wretchskull (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Wretchskull: I'm  Done --Grimes2 (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Unfortunately, the prose needs a lot of work for a more professional standard. I understand that you are not a native user but this is an incredibly important criteria.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Please link books in the bibliography section to Internet Archive if available, such as this one.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The most comprehensive book is not cited once despite being in the bibliography section, which is understandable as it is in Swedish.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   You could use an image of Pettersson without permission if it is fair use.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Sorry Grimes2. I know it is extremely frustrating (also considering that the article failed GAN before), but if I was completely honest, I'm not entirely sure if this article is of GA quality. The fact that the most comprehensive book isn't cited once, as well as the monotone prose and big leaps in time periods due to lack of broadness weighs down on the criteria quite a bit. I want you to acknowledge the aforementioned comments and link books to Internet archive if available. Ping me and I'll ponder the decision. Wretchskull (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I want to mention, that this article was copy edited by User:Twofingered Typist (RIP), a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 28 June 2021. I've added the link to the Aare book, no other book is available. Problem with image: "Fair use" media files are not allowed on Wikimedia Commons. A possible photo for the article is from Sverige pressarkiv: https://sok.riksarkivet.se/sbl/Mobil/Artikel/7223 --Grimes2 (talk) 09:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC) @Wretchskull: Grimes2 (talk) 10:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

P.S.: Fair-use photo uploaded and used. Grimes2 (talk) 11:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Grimes2: The article has been promoted to GA status. I'll see if I can incorporate the Leif Aare ref one day when I have time. Wretchskull (talk) 12:14, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. As far as I know, Leif Aare's book is out of print and difficult to get in libraries. Grimes2 (talk) 12:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Wretchskull: At my userpage you wrote GA failed. Grimes2 (talk) 12:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Grimes2: Strange... the bot gave the wrong message. I updated one of the talk page parameters and added the article to the GA list. I'll wait an hour and see if the bot adds the icon by itself. If not, I'll do it. Wretchskull (talk) 13:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

This is, as I understand it, a known bug in Legobot which occurs when an article has previously failed a good article review, and then passes a subsequent review. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)