Talk:American premieres of Dmitri Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Shostakovich in his firefighting uniform, 1941

• ... that news coverage preceding the American premieres of Dmitri Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7 was described as a "great fever of war-hysterical publicity"? Source: "The thickest aura and the loudest Babel—a true international Babel this time, in many tongues—have surrounded the Seventh ('Leningrad') Symphony, ever since the composer's autograph score was microfilmed and flown to New York by way of Teheran and Cairo in a great fever of war-hysterical publicity, for performance under Arturo Toscanini." ("Shostakovich and Us" by Richard Taruskin in Shostakovich in Context, p. 17)
  • ALT1: ... that years after premiering Dmitri Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7 in the US, Arturo Toscanini asked if he had really learned and conducted "such junk"? Source: "Years later, while listening to his NBC performance of [Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7], Toscanini allegedly asked, 'Did I really learn and conduct such junk?'" (Arturo Toscanini: The NBC Years by Mortimer H. Frank, p. 66)
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Catherine de Parthenay
  • Comment: QPQ coming soon. I got a few more ALTs too...

Created by CurryTime7-24 (talk). Self-nominated at 05:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/American premieres of Dmitri Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: - Not done
Overall: @CurryTime7-24: Good article. Waiting on a QPQ. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• Some more ALTs, just in case:
  • ALT2: ... that after the American broadcast premiere of Dmitri Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7, the New York Daily News called one of the work's themes a "crazy little tune" akin to Fats Waller's "Ain't Misbehavin'"? Source: [1]
  • ALT3: ... that on the day of the American broadcast premiere of Dmitri Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7 in 1942, Louella Parsons reported that a film adaptation of the work was being considered? Source: [2]
• Onegreatjoke? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Approve. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:American premieres of Dmitri Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MyCatIsAChonk (talk · contribs) 00:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

A fascinating article, and I appreciate its origin story- will review soon! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

CurryTime7-24, some concerns below- I'll read through it entirely when you're done- fantastic work so far! Also, ref 5 is broken. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

My hands are full at the moment, so please give me until September 10 (PDT) to answer your concerns in detail and to start the article clean-up. Thank you as always! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	A live CBS radio broadcast of a performance of his Symphony No. 1 on December 7, 1941, was interrupted by breaking news of the Empire of Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor. - IMO, not lead worthy; certainly good for the rest of the prose, but it's not particularly to summarizing DSCH's perception in the US Done! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC) Quotes in leads need citations Do they still need them even though they are cited in the body? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC) Elie Siegmeister and Amnon Balber in an article published in Musical America and the Brooklyn Daily Eagle said - IMO, unnecessary detail about the source of the quote- just using the newspaper is fine Done! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC) the New York Times,[11][12] Baltimore Sun - for both these papers, "The" is part of their names and should also be part of the wls Done! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC) He completed the symphony on December 27 and spent the next few hours - "the next few hours" makes it sound like present tense; perhaps "spent the following hours" Done! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC) dynamics, phrasing, and expressive markings - add wls for the non-musician reader Done, I think, but could only find one passage where musical terminology was explicitly used. May I please have a list of other passages that need amending? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC) and played the symphony for them. - likely worth clarifying that this was the piano reduction Done! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC) Soon after, he performed the symphony at his home again - when is soon after? Unfortunately, the source does not specify when this occurred. Can you suggest an alternate phrasing that wouldn't pose MOS:RELTIME issues? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC) Among his guests were harpist Vera Dulova and conductor Alexander Melik-Pashayev, who hoped to premiere the symphony. - "the latter of whom hoped to..." Done! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC) Victor Seroff, a contemporary biographer - I hate to contradict you on any DSCH-related topic, but 1943 is contemporary? I meant contemporaneous for the period discussed in the article. Let me fix that! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC) In efn a, is Shostakovich's personally selected biographer supported by the ref? Same for According to Sofia Khentova, Shostakovich's official biographer, the composer accepted... To make it easier for everyone, I removed this detail. (It's also not really relevant to the article.) —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC) "Shostakovich's Seventh and most important symphony—ninety minutes [sic] of music..." - sic should be italicized and linked; same goes for anytime sic is said in the article Done! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC) James Hilton quoted in his column Shostakovich's remarks imploring his fellow Soviet citizens to maintain their resolve in the defense of their country;[43] another columnist in Pasadena, California, quoting the same asked rhetorically, "Can a nation endowed with such a spirit be defeated?"[44] An article from Dayton, Ohio, illustrated Russian people's devotion to music by reporting on how during the symphony's Moscow premiere the musicians and audience ignored an air raid warning in order to let the performance continue.[45] The Honolulu Star-Bulletin declared that Shostakovich was "among the greatest of contemporary composers."[46] - throughout all these reviews, the use of author, paper, or city is inconsistent. One uses the author, some others use the city of the newspaper, and one just uses the name of the paper. I suggest using on format for consistency- all work just fine Let me work on that tomorrow... —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC) I trimmed this passage and standardized how the media is referred to. Let me know what you think! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC) including from the New York Times and Time, - again, the is part of The New York Times Done and done! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC) Downes wrote in the New York Times that - same here Ditto! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC) How is the "Intermezzo interrotto" section relevant to America? Bartók's reaction and resulting movement for his Concerto for Orchestra were direct results of the American mania for Shostakovich 7 and Toscanini's broadcast. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC) Prose is clear and free of typos
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No lists, fiction, or words to watch; layout is appropriate, lead is well-written
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Refs are placed in a proper 'References' section
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Sources consist of reliable books and newspaper articles; all good here
	2c. it contains no original research.	Don't see a need for a spotcheck (would be hard anyway since many are offline); article is well-cited and verifiable, no OR visible
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	I worry about the number of blockquotes. While a number of them are certainly necessary in my opinion, some are reviews that could easily be paraphrased/summarized and backed by other reviewers; particularly the quotes under "Recordings" and Kay's quote under "Criticism". One of the quotes under "Press coverage" should be cut, since they both reflect the same idea: "Shosty's masterpiece, we will all love it, etc etc" (please excuse my extreme reductiveness, this is just for the review's sake) Earwig shows no violations, quote use is appropriate
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Addresses DSCH's perception pre-Seventh, the press coverage of the Seventh, the premiere and battle over it, and the overall reception; all good
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Stays focused throughout
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No bias visible
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit warring
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:Beethoven Waldmuller 1823.jpg - needs US tag Images are properly tagged
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	IMO, the portrait of Beethoven is unnecessary; the Beethoven comparisons are mentioned in one sentence near the photo, then again in another sentence further away The image sizing across the article is odd to me. Some images (e.g. NBC staff examining microfilm) are rather small, while others (e.g. Shosty in firefighting gear are rather large. I think there could be better consistency here Don't think Sandburg is needed either, since he's mentioned in one sentence in that section Images are relevant and properly captioned
	7. Overall assessment.

• Thank you for your patience! I'll be editing according to your review in a bit, but wanted clarification on a few points. A number of sections of the review are rated "don't know"; specifically dealing with the sections on prose quality, adherence to the MOS, no OR, and whether or not the article is sufficiently broad, neutral, and on-topic. However, there is no explanation as to why these are rated as such. May I please have explanations so I can fix these problems? Thank you again! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Sorry for not answering this concern previously: my reason for the inconsistency in image sizes is for concern with how text looks in desktop and mobile views. I experimented with different sizes and placements prior to the final versions, but found these caused the article text to be distorted. However, I can resize them in a consistent manner if you believe this to be better. Please let me know! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

    @CurryTime7-24, no worries- those are unmarked because I haven't assesed them yet. I was waiting until the blockquote issue was fixed to thoroughly read the prose, in which I'd look at 1, 2c, and 3-4 MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

    I see you've fixed it now, thanks- I'll look through it soon! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

    @CurryTime7-24, done with the review. Comments on the prose are in the table- very good work on the prose! I made some small phrasing/comma changes, hope you don't mind- if you oppose any, don't hesitate to revert and discuss! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

    @CurryTime7-24 Very close now! I rephrased the soon after sentence, take a look- as for quotes in leads, see WP:WHENNOTCITE: "... quotations and controversial statements, particularly if about living persons, should be supported by citations even in the lead." MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

    @CurryTime7-24, just waiting on lead citations :) MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 02:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

    I'll be back to continue tomorrow (PDT)! Thank you for being patient. :) —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 06:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

    Just one more day, please. Work is keeping me extra busy, but I promise to return tomorrow in the afternoon (PDT) and finally get this thing to the finish line! Thank you as always!! :) —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

    No concern over the timetable for this, I don't quite believe in cutting off GA reviews due to time (within reason, of course, and you've been entirely reasonable) MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

• @MyCatIsAChonk Thank you so much for being patient. I really appreciate it. Was not trying to slack off with this GA nomination, but my real-life duties have been piling on as of late. So about the lead citations: are these necessary if they are cited within the article body? My understanding, which might be wrong, is that as long as the material is cited in the body, it does not also need one in the lead. Please correct me if I'm mistaken. Thank you again! :) —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

  @CurryTime7-24: per WP:WHENNOTCITE: "... quotations and controversial statements, particularly if about living persons, should be supported by citations even in the lead." Thus, citations must be added for all quotes, regardless of their place in the article. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

  Got it! Thank you. Let me fix this in a few... —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

  I rewrote the lead and removed all quotes. Let me know what you think! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

  All good now- ready for promotion MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.