Talk:Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tomcat7 (talk · contribs) 11:56, 26 January 2013 (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): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Reply by Toccata quarta

Wow, I was not expecting that. For a start, what makes you suspect the article contains original research? What makes you doubt its verifiability? What makes you think it's not neutral, considering that the section "Reception" contains both positive and negative views? Regarding broadness: the article relies significantly on the work of preeminent Sorabji scholars, including Paul Rapoport, Sean Vaughn Owen, Marc-André Roberge and Simon John Abrahams. Sorabji was highly reclusive, so his biography is not as rich as that of Franz Liszt. "Reasonably well written": the article was proofread by User:Stfg, a member of WP:GOCE.

Images – the article contains no images. Are you sure you did not want to place this review elsewhere? I'm really confused. Toccata quarta (talk) 12:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Toccata quarta, don't worry, have patience. Those marks just mean the reviewer is yet to review those items. --Stfg (talk) 12:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I did not know that. Nevertheless, that does not clarify my confusion about the issue of images in the article. Toccata quarta (talk) 12:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The marks just indicate absence of violations, I believe. Note the "where possible and appropriate" in the criterion. --Stfg (talk) 12:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

---

• I am just starting reviewing it :)
• If there are no free images, suggest adding at least one non-free file
  • If the article has no image, can it be promoted? Toccata quarta (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

It's best to have one if possible, but this isn't grounds to fail it (see Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not#(6) Appropriately illustrated). --Stfg (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, now I can stop worrying too much about that. :) Toccata quarta (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• "along with his race," - suggest replacing race with ethnicity

yes, better; done --Stfg (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

OK. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Relationship with his father" may be moved down to "Private life"

Good idea! Toccata quarta (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• " and in 1956 settled in "The Eye", " - perhaps "and five years later settled in"

well, it could be barely more than 4; I've inserted "he", though, as it reads better with that --Stfg (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

OK. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• "but nothing came of their attempts.[28]" - you already said they tried, so I would write "several admirers unsucessfully tried to persuade Sorabji to record Opus clavicembalisticum. "

good idea (the correct word order is "tried unsuccessfully" :)); done --Stfg (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

OK. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• "121 guineas" - suggest converting to pounds

I've provided a value to the nearest pound in parentheses. --Stfg (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

OK. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Gentieu sent Sorabji some provisions, but the depth of their friendship appears to have been such that he continued to do so for the next four decades. " - I don't understand this sentence. Is sending provisions something negative (the but word confuses me)

You're right. Changed to "and" --Stfg (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The "but" was there because he kept helping him, even though the post-war shortages in England were over. I don't think it's a problem. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I think "and" is better in this case, because the phrase is followed by "Gentieu sent Sorabji some provisions", which may be confusing. --Tomcat (7) 12:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• "but Sorabji did not do so.[32]" - but the latter refused to do so

It's unclear to me whether this was a refusal or just not getting round to it. --Stfg (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to say what his motivation was, but Holliday needed several years to persuade him. As the article mentions, copyright laws, reluctance to play his music and the "ban" have been mentioned as possible causes. I would leave it as it is, since the matter isn't clear enough and the article discusses it elsewhere. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Gentieu also sent Sorabji a tape recorder so that he could record some of his music," - Gentieu also sent him a tape recorder to let Sorabji recording some of his music or Gentieu also sent Sorabji a tape recorder to record some of his music

The latter is best; done. --Stfg (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

OK. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Who exactly is Genrieu? What was his occupation?

Fixed. --Stfg (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

OK. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• "After they met," - perhaps "After their meeting"

Why so? --Stfg (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hm, I don't see a problem here. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Should "To" in "To the memory of Delius" be in lowercase?--Tomcat (7) 13:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

This may be the exact inscription, in which case we could change the sentence to 'The dedication read "To the memory of Delius" ...'. Toccata quarta, do the sources bear that out? Otherwise, it would be good to lower-case it and remove the quotes. --Stfg (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Both Rapoport and Inglis use "To". Toccata quarta (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

An excellent article! I am sure it has good chances at FAC. Well done!--Tomcat (7) 12:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks! :) Toccata quarta (talk) 13:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)