Talk:Leningrad première of Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7

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:Leningrad première of Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk · contribs) 20:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Really interesting, very readable article, and no major issues. In fact, I could pass this straight away pretty much, but here are a few nit-picks before I do so. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps the lead could establish the context that this took place during the siege?
• Maybe include a sentence or two on who Shostakovich was?
• "The group had not been playing and musical broadcasts had ceased.[8] The orchestra's last performance had taken place on 14 December 1941 and its last broadcast on 1 January 1942." Do we need the first sentence at all, given that the second sentence pretty much covers it?
• "was quickly ended by Andrei Zhdanov": A word on who he is?
• "Efforts were made to seek out those musicians who could not come.": If they could not come, why were they sought out?

• They hadn't come because they were starving - clarified. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• In fact, I'm slightly confused by this paragraph. Did they decide to do the concert, realise that many were missing (not sure what "available" means given that there were no rehearsals. Were they summoned for the performance, and some did not turn up?) and then seek out the rest of the musicians?

• Attempted to clarify. Basically they sent out a call for orchestral musicians to rehearse and only a few turned up; the performance was several months later. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Collapses were frequent throughout rehearsals, especially among brass players.": Collapses of the musicians, presumably, rather than, say, the stage? What about "Players frequently collapsed throughout rehearsals, particularly among the brass section".
• "Orchestral players were given additional rations (donated by civilian music enthusiasts) in an effort to combat starvation and hot bricks were used for radiant heat (the building was unheated); nevertheless, three performers died while rehearsals were ongoing.": Why does this need five refs? It seems excessive.

• Different refs for additional rations, food donations, hot bricks, unheated building, and deaths - I could split these up per point, but to me that seems messy. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Instruments were in poor condition and few repairpeople were available; one oboist was asked for a cat in exchange for a repair.": I don't quite see the connection between the two parts of the sentence. Also, "repairpeople" seems quite clumsy. (And why a cat????)

• Both parts relate to instrument repair: the repairman to which the oboist went was starving, so he asked her to provide a cat for him to eat (most of the city's dogs and cats had been consumed, and more traditional "food" animals were long gone). Any suggestions on how to better connect these parts? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• "The orchestra performed the entire symphony only once before the première, at a dress rehearsal on 6 August.": Presumably this means once all the way through? (And what were they doing at all those long rehearsals?)

• Collapsing and trembling, for the most part. They were too weak to be able to play long stretches of music at a time, and needed long pauses; they were also playing quite badly, so the conductor would need to spend considerable time correcting issues and making suggestions.

• "This was the day Hitler had chosen previously to celebrate the fall of Leningrad with a lavish banquet at the Astoria Hotel.": Perhaps reword here as it appears that Leningrad had, in fact, fallen.
• The Eliasberg quote does not really stand out as a quote separate from the text.
• Maybe mention in the aftermath section the outcome of the siege (albeit very briefly)?
• Did the orchestra perform other works in public, or was this pretty much a "one-off" event?

• I mentioned a Tchaikovsky concert in April 1942; there may have been other performances, but I haven't found sources that mention them explicitly. They definitely rehearsed other works. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Spotchecks reveal no problems
• External links and dablinks fine. Images fine.

I'll place this on hold, but this should be very quick to sort. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Addressed, except where noted. Thanks for reviewing! Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Everything looks good. Not a big deal about the cat-eating repairman, so passing now. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:13, 29 December 2012 (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.

Title

Is it necessary to have "Leningrad" in the article's name? Toccata quarta (talk) 05:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. This wasn't the world première, but it was significant as the first time the symphony was played in "its" city. Several sources use the term "Leningrad première" for the concert (examples [1][2][3]). Nikkimaria (talk) 13:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Intended for...

The phrasing "intended for the piece to be premièred by the Leningrad Philharmonic Orchestra" in the lead seems rather strange to me. Would it not be better to replace it with "intended that the piece should be premièred by the Leningrad Philharmonic Orchestra"? This could of course simply be a case of American vs British usage.--Ipigott (talk) 08:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

"premièred"?

Hi all,
The English language Premiere includes "première" as an alternate spelling in English. But surely "premiered" is an English language verb, historically far enough away from the loan word for it to lose the grave diacritic?
Pètè AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Leningrad première of Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130928183028/http://www.shostakovich.com/may2002.html to http://www.shostakovich.com/may2002.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

a norwegian-german filmproduction

Carsten Gutschmidt, Christian Frey (Regie/Dir.): Leningrad Symphonie, eine Stadt kämpft um ihr Leben. (L. fighting for life) 2017, Germany, 90 min, Documentary with playscenes, NDR, arte u.a.(Senderangaben bei arte-tv, Feb. 2018), Beetzproduction. --sehund, 13:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 10 May 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. WP:USEENGLISH does not reject diacritics, and premiere is a word that can be written either way in English (including in the article "premiere," and in reliable sources like the Oxford English Dictionary, which is regarded as an accepted standard of British English). Use of one spelling in one article title does not require adoption in others. It is also noted that diacritics are primarily used in more recent loanwords, which explains why premiere (a relatively recent loanword from French) may be included. The other contrary views do not overcome MOS:RETAIN. (non-admin closure) SilverLocust (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

---

Leningrad première of Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7 → Leningrad premiere of Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7 – Better article title without using diacritics. 112.204.203.83 (talk) 23:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. No evidence that the alternate spelling is "better". Nikkimaria (talk) 23:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  Article titles with diacritics for this word "première", that fails WP:USEENGLISH. 112.204.203.83 (talk) 23:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  No, it doesn't. The accented version is an accepted spelling in English, and MOS:DIACRITICS indicates that the use of diacritics "in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged". Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  IP, you need to stop edit-warring over the accent. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Nikkimaria. "Première" is an accepted variant spelling. No persuasive evidence that removing the accent grave improves the article itself. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  @CurryTime7-24: I'd recently changed for this lead section, in order to avoid bolding, but according to the WP:MOS, also I refer WP:SDNONE for short descriptions, it can be intentionally blank. 112.204.203.83 (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Nikkimaria and MOS:RETAIN—blindlynx 00:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, WP:ENGVAR. 162 etc. (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. English language does not use accents or diacritics, although occasional exceptions are made for words that have been adapted from languages that do use glyphs. The English Wikipedia main title header for the article "Premiere" and headers for virtually every other topic that originates in the English-speaking world use "premiere", rather than "première". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
  • "première" is the spelling used by the Oxford English Dictionary and appears in the first sentence of our article on the topic. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. I concur with User:Roman Spinner. The use of "première" with the grave accent is not standard in any variety of English, in which the orthography does not use diacritics except for certain unusual and recent loanwords like entrepôt and façade, and proper nouns like L'Hôpital's rule. The word premiere is so common in English without the diacritic that adding it is awkward and distracting. Spacemarine10 (talk) 21:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  • "première" is the spelling used by the Oxford English Dictionary - this article is written in Oxford English. The version without the diacritic is awkward and distracting. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

    I understand that the extra little symbol which doesn't change the meaning is distracting to you, but for the average reader, I seems the opposite. - Please - everybody: when you reply to some indentation, repeat that indentation for the sake of people using screen readers, per this essay. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

    It is true that the spelling ⟨première⟩ appears in the article on the topic—as an alternative to the spelling used for its title, ⟨premiere⟩! The article's name should use the spelling without the grave, which is more familiar to most readers across English varieties. Spacemarine10 (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

    Yes, I'm glad we agree that it is an accepted alternative spelling - it's thus appropriate per MOS to maintain the established consistent usage. It is also perfectly comprehensible to readers, and indeed most of the research I'm aware of on diacritics supports that their inclusion improves comprehension. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom and reasoning by Roman Spinner: our article is premiere, the adopted English "premiere" is understood, and the diacritic would need extra support by sources to be used. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Interesting to see the arguments that come out in discussions over diacritics in English. English dictionaries tell us that première is an English spelling,[4][5][6][OED] so USEENGLISH doesn’t apply. I can find no concrete indication that either spelling is particular to a regional variety of English[7]  – although it is somewhat more used in British than in American[8] – so ENGVAR doesn’t apply. Some dictionaries say “also première,” meaning it is a less common form, and Google Ngram supports this:[9] but while WP:COMMONNAME would prefer it, WP:TITLECHANGES discourages renaming an article that’s been stable for over a decade without a good reason. One could also consider WP:CONSISTENCY with the main article “Premiere,” but TITLECHANGES dispels that this is a mandate. I see no strong argument to move (and I am put off by the incorrect assertions that English doesn’t use diacritics, and note that the word was borrowed directly from the French feminine form première'’).  —Michael Z. 14:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose OED uses première. But I have to note that OELD and Cambridge Dictionary use premiere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Tauchman (talk • contribs) 12:41, 18 May 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.

MOS:BOLDAVOID

I proposed this lead section to be changed without bolding:

Dmitri Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7, was premiered in Leningrad, Soviet Union, on 9 August 1942, during the Second World War, was under siege by the Nazi German forces.

112.204.203.83 (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

This is not grammatical and not an improvement over the present version. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

If ungrammatical, see for example like this, this, and this, should always avoid bolding from the lead section. 112.204.203.83 (talk) 04:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Examples of articles that don't bold in the lead do not demonstrate that one "should always avoid bolding from the lead", nor do they address the grammar issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

True, but the current lead sentence is hard to parse. It is also hugely detrimental that neither the composer nor work are linked in the first sentence (sine bold items are not supposed to linked). What about "During the Second World War, Dmitri Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7 had its Leningrad première on 9 August 1942 while the city was under siege by the Nazi German forces." – Aza24 (talk) 04:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, see from here. [10] 112.204.197.139 (talk) 12:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

FA?

I happened to read through the article because of the ongoing discussion about bolding and, given its FA rating, found a number of issues that were surprising to find. No Russian sources, which would be invaluable here, are cited. Instead, Alex Ross, who is not known to be a Shostakovich scholar and has gleamed his knowledge of this work via the writings of others, and "History for Busy People" (?) are. Testimony is not cited, but the composer's alleged remarks from it about this symphony are alluded to in a weasely passage—after which it cites Fay's essay debunking the book. Rumors about Mravinsky are mentioned, but The Guardian source does not confirm anything about them; the other source does, but again, some dead link to a site called "History for Busy People" is unlikely to be an authoritative source of Shostakovich scholarship. I don't recall reading anything about Mravinsky's jealousy toward Eliasberg in Gregor Tassie's biography of the former, but I'll go check just to be sure.

At the moment I can't do any extensive repairs for this article as I got a few other irons in the fire, but should have time around mid-June. Just putting it out there now so I don't catch anybody off guard. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 05:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

And to be clear, I hope I didn't come off as grouchy or some such in my post. (Sometimes it's hard to convey a smile in prose!) I appreciate and am grateful for the work on this article; I just want to help and make it shine some more. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 05:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree that there are some improvements to be made; I find the reliance on a source from The Guardian particularly inferior to academic sources. Most of the research is certainly present though and the article is hugely informative. Aza24 (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

The author of that article has subsequently published a book with University of Chicago Press that appears to cover some of the material here, although I won't be able to access it until next week at the earliest. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to get a hold of that. This topic also seems like something Taruskin would have written about. I think generally the sources are skewed towards coverage of Leningrad in general than musicologist writings about Shostakovich specifically. Likely not an inherent flaw, but certainly an opportunity for improvement there. Aza24 (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

If there are other specific sources you think should be added let me know. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

FYI, the beginning of what I had hoped to have been my major contributions to this article ended up taking a life of their own and turned, instead, into this. Not sure if I have the time available to take on another project at the moment. My work on this present article may have to wait until next month or August. Have some other things cooking up for mainspace at the moment besides. I'm sorry for the trouble. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)