Wikipedia:Peer review/Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky/archive1

Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky edit

A while back I asked Jonyungk about getting this article to featured status. He had already been working on it for some time and continued to work on it tirelessly until it became what it is now. I never knew until recently that it is good to peer review an article before nominating it to featured status, and so here it is at your disposal. Is there anything left that needs done for it to be submitted for FAC? — $PЯINGεrαgђ 04:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is too long, ideally the text needs to be removed or shortened till the article is 3/5 its current length.

The "Musical works" "Style" and "Compositions" sections need to be merged.

The introduction needs to be shortened to four paragraphs.

Tchaikovsky being gay needs to be discussed, and not as a homophobic knee jerk reaction.

The section which currently discusses this is oddly titled and placed. It stands outside the chronological description of his life, is a discussion of the controversy regarding his sexuality and not about his personal life, and stands out since many articles do not have "Personal life" sections.

There is, however, good reason to present the information in a separate section in that it is apparently very controversial. As such the section needs to be made NPOV. It then needs to make reference to and perhaps be referenced in the description of his life and works so as to fit better into the article and its flow. Hyacinth 22:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Tchaikovsky being gay ^[sic] needs to be discussed, and not as a homophobic knee jerk reaction." Can you expound on this a bit? It is sourced and widely known that he had homosexual feelings (after all the talk page shows it falls under WikiProject LGBT Studies). — $PЯINGεrαgђ 00:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication of him being gay, except the denial. What is briefly described is a cover up of him being gay, the sketchy proof of his straightness in that he thought about marriage (see beard), and a lack of consensus (which is uncited). Reading the section I imagine one would think "Why did they think he was gay anyways. Must not be." Hyacinth 00:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find this section a bit more filled out. I'm very concerned about NPOV, as much as Poznansky and Holden aree given more or less equal time. Suggestions would be most welcome at this point. Thanks. Jonyungk 01:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you guys cite the New Grove? Here's one example from the Tchaikovsky article in the online New Grove Dictionary of Opera (Richard Taruskin): "Professional success brought with it entrée to aristocratic circles where Tchaikovsky's homosexuality was more readily tolerated; this, plus a loving and protective family (including a worshipping younger brother, Modest, who, sharing his sexual orientation, became his literary collaborator and personal confidant, later his biographer), seems to have helped the composer towards self-acceptance in his later years." Here is a line from the article on 'Gay and lesbian music' in the New Grove (Philip Brett): "Following the inception of a homosexual identity (see §1), Tchaikovsky became the first musician widely known to fit the role." Good stuff: you can use that. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 00:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll keep your suggestions in mind and seek out both these sources at my local library, though please note my concerns stated above about NPOV. While considering additional sources can always be good, I'd greatly appreciate suggestions on what is currently in the article as well. Thanks again. Jonyungk 07:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review edit

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), favorite (A) (British: favourite), defense (A) (British: defence), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), counselor (A) (British: counsellor), signalling (B) (American: signaling), travelled (B) (American: traveled), installment (A) (British: instalment).
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
- Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “~~All~~ pigs are pink, so we thought of ~~a number of~~ ways to turn them green.”
As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 15:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments edit

In the 10,000 foot view, I notice that the article as it stands is mainly a biography; it ends with a very short section on works and style. Detailed sections are available as links. Were these split off because there were complaints the article was too long? My opinion (feel free to disagree) is that it's OK to have long articles on subjects like this one, and that any article on a composer should be 40-60% biography and 40-60% works/style/influence. Sometimes that material can be integrated into the biography, but it's tough to do--better IMO to have a separate section as you do. Antandrus (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My main comments would be that there seems to be an awful lot of material in the article at present which is simply cut-and-pasted out of other published sources (albeit referenced). Also a great deal of the language (e.g. describing his music) is very subjective, flowery and somewhat unencyclopaedic. For example, in the opening paragraph:

" While not part of the nationalistic music group "The Russian Five", Tchaikovsky wrote music now known and loved for its distinctly Russian character, rich harmonies and stirring melodies. His works, however, are much more western than those of his Russian contemporaries as he effectively uses international elements in addition to national folk melodies."

- Saying T's music is "loved" is a POV statement. It would be more objective to note things such as how often his works are still performed today at classical concerts, or used as incidental music in cinema, etc. - The sentence handwaves to another article for any explanation of what might be the characteristics of "Russian-sounding music" - what are "rich" harmonies? - "stirring" melodies is not an objective phrase --feline1 18:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you've mentioned the opening paragraph (the only one, ironically, I didn't change), how about some examples from later in the article?

Also, yes, I drew on a number of sources and found out early on that if I didn't leavem in the form you have seen them, the WikiBOTs would ding what I was writing as an essay—even when I supplied attribution.

As for "flowery," no, I do not write in a style that could be considred dry, pedantic or pompously boring. But I do find "flowery" extremely insulting for what it connotes from the opposite extreme. Am I to assume I am wriiting a historical romance novel at Wikipedia's expense? Jonyungk 05:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Extremely insulting"? Please familiarise yourself with WP:FAITH - Peer Review has been requested for the article, and I have given some. Please do not react to it as a personal insult. I cited examples from the opening paragraph because that's the one that people read first, and those examples are indicative and applicable to the rest of the article. Where language is subjective rather than objective, and making POV value judgements of Tchaikovsky's music, than it is less encyclodpaedic than it might be.--feline1 10:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]