Talk:Shostakovich v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp./GA1

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.

---

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

Reviewer: CurryTime7-24 (talk · contribs) 17:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• I will begin my review of this GA nomination later today(PDT). —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:32, 2 October 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.	Please read my additional remarks in "Overall assessment".
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead cannot be any longer than three paragraphs, according to WP:BETTER/GRAF1. See further remarks below.
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.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Overall, nominator has done excellent work in transforming this former stub into a well-written and sourced contender for GA. I only have a few concerns: The lead refers to the composers involved as having "poor relationships with the Soviet government". This is not quite true. Although all four had been censured in April 1948 by the USSR Union of Composers in its Anti-Formalist Resolution on Music, they had also been the most highly-awarded composers in the country, enjoying state privileges inaccessible to ordinary citizens (or most composers, for that matter). Moreover, all these composers were offered opportunities for political rehabilitation, which they all took and benefited from quickly. (For an example of a Soviet composer who truly had a poor relationship with authorities, see Alexander Mossolov, whom even Shostakovich, according to the scholarship of Marina Frolova-Walker.) Removed this language because I think getting into the weeds on this is beyond the scope of this article. The reference to Justice Koch in the lead should be amended to ensure the reader knows that the Supreme Court in question is not the US, but the state one. Fixed. Inconsistent use of musical work titles. For example, two of Shostakovich's symphonies are referred to as "Symphony No. 5" and "sixth symphony [sic]" in the same sentence. Either cardinal or ordinal naming is fine, but choose one and ensure that its usage is consistent throughout the article. Regardless of which naming format is preferred, the symphonies are always capitalized when referring to them directly. When writing about them in a general way, however, use lowercase. (Examples: "Shostakovich's Symphony No.5/Fifth Symphony is in four movements"; "The number of movements in Shostakovich's symphonies can vary widely"). Fixed. The quote from the introductory title card of The Iron Curtain needs to have [sic] next to the names of Khachaturian and Myaskovsky so the reader knows their misspellings are per the source. I don't think using sic is quite right here because the spellings are just different romanization schemes. "VOKS, a Soviet arts promotion organization...": VOKS was not just a Soviet arts promotion organization, it was the Soviet international cultural exchange and goodwill organization. Changed. False titles need to be dropped (e.g. Professor Mira T. Sundara Rajan...). Changed. "One radio columnist...": According to the citation in the source, this quote was excerpted from an "untitled, undated document detailing all radio blurbs acknowledging the film from May 11 to May 13" in the marketing dossier for The Iron Curtain. This passage should be rewritten so as to make its provenance clear to the reader, in order to avoid the appearance of WP:VAGUE or WP:WEASEL. Changed. Is the listing of the Soviet espionage in the United States article in "See also" really relevant here? Removed. Once the above points are addressed, I will follow up with any more issues if they should arise. In addition, I would also like to do some spot checks for some of the citations used. Thank you for expanding and nominating this article! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC) @CurryTime7-24: Done. Also, just to note, WP:BETTER/GRAF1 is not part of the GA guidelines, but you are correct that this lead needed some work per MOS:LEAD. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• Re. misspellings of composer names: They are both misspelled. Хачатурян is usually transliterated as "Khachaturian" and sometimes "Khachaturyan", but "Kat" does not correspond with "Хач". "Khach", "Hach", "Chach", and "Xach" are possible, but not "Kat" (which would be "Кат"). "Miashovsky" is also wrong. There is no "ш" ("sh") in "Myaskovsky" ("Мясковский"). The "к" ("k") and "в" ("v") are also missing. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 04:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Added {{sic}}. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
• Mention of the New York Supreme Court should also be clarified in the article body. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 04:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
  • There's a paranthetical referring to it as the trial court in the background section. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
• "Preslit, the Soviet Union's arts distribution agency in the United States which was associated with VOKS": Preslit was the literary publishing house of VOKS, not an associated organization. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC) Spoke too soon. Seems sources conflict as to what Preslit exactly did and what organization it may have been a part of. According to Viktoria Zora,[1] evidence suggests that it worked closely, but apart from VOKS. Your description is accurate, but maybe amend it to "arts distribution and copyright agency" per Zora, just to be sure. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

    Realized I forgot to ping you, @CurryTime7-24. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

    Thank you for the ping! So far, this is looking good. Will ask for some spot checks in a day or two. Please bear with me as I'll be out of town until Monday (PDT), so my availability will be spotty for a bit. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 06:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

    Hi @CurryTime7-24. Just checking in. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 21:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

    Thanks for the ping! Re-reading the article. Will reply in full shortly. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Spot checks

Thank you for your hard work on this article. At this point I will ask for spot checks to verify your sources and the accuracy of how they're being cited. May I please have the quoted source texts for the following?

• FN 6 cites "The film, distributed by Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation, was 'Hollywood's first Cold War effort.'"

  • "In 1948, several Soviet composers, including Dmitri Shostakovich, objected to the use of their music in an American spy film, The Iron Curtain, that was distinctly anti-Communist. These soviet composers understandably feared the gulag for appearing in Holywood's first Cold War effort." voorts (talk/contributions) 22:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Quibble: maybe either remove the quotation marks from "Hollywood's first Cold War effort" in the article, keep the quotes and attribute the source, or reword that passage to avoid copying the source. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@CurryTime7-24: Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll be back later tonight (PDT), so please bear with me for just a few more hours. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for your help improving the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Just checking in again, @CurryTime7-24. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 21:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• FN 17 cites the entire paragraph beginning with "That month, Helen Black—head of Preslit". (Citing a span of two pages is fine, but three may inadvertently give the impression of WP:SYNTH. I suggest citing specific pages where required in that paragraph.)

  •  Working voorts (talk/contributions) 22:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)  Done voorts (talk/contributions) 23:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• FN 11 cites "In May 1948, attorney Charles Recht—who had previously served as the Soviet Union's representative to the United States—filed suit against Fox on behalf of Shostakovich, Khachaturian, Prokofiev, and Myaskovsky, seeking both a temporary and permanent injunction prohibiting distribution of The Iron Curtain."

  •  Working voorts (talk/contributions) 22:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC) "It was in order to prevent the distribution and/or showing of The Iron Curtain in America that Shostakovich and several other Russian composers seized [i.e., sued in] the Court of New York." I also added cites to Tomoff 2015 and to the case itself. The case states that the motion was for an injunction pendente lite (i.e., temporarily) and permanently. Tomoff 2015 discusses Charles Recht; I believe there was originally a cite to Tomoff in that paragraph but things might have been moved around. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• FN 30 cites "According to law professor Justin Hughes, the privacy claim rested on a right to anonymity and the contention that use of the music constituted a public "distortion" of the composers' beliefs."

  • "On the surface, the plaintiff in each case [including the Shostakovich case, as well as a case involving Dr. Seuss discussed in the article,] claimed that the public use of his name against his will invaded his privacy. Interestingly, this is the reverse of the right to demand that one's name be used publicly with one's work. ... The privacy argument [in the cases] is only one of several distinct privacy arguments." (356)
  • "At first glance, the privacy argument in the Shostakovich and Geisel cases can be taken as an argument for anonymity. Shostakovich's position was that even if his music was used in the movie, he should be able to prevent use of his name. In essence, he presented a claim to stay out of public notice." (357)
  • "These cases presented more than a claim for anonymity and for remaining out of public view; those claims were counterparts of the substantive privacy we have been considering. ... Shostakovich ... opposed publication of a message that could be mistaken as [his]. ... Shostakovich opposed being identified with the substance of an anti-Soviet movie. ... The[is] concern[] do[es] not really fit a privacy argument since nothing private is being revealed. It is a matter of distortion. Such distortion can be attacked through defamation doctrine, but the first amendment might provide another means to protect this interest." (358) voorts (talk/contributions) 22:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• FN 41 cites "However, commenters have divided on whether the court properly answered 'the question of whether a composer's integrity can be impaired by a faithful rendition of his song in an objectionable context.'" —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  • "Shostakovich raises the question of whether a composer's integrity can be impaired by a faithful rendition of his song in an objectionable context." voorts (talk/contributions) 22:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@CurryTime7-24: Finished. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@CurryTime7-24. Just wanted to check in again and see if we can get this closed out. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll be in later tonight. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:13, 16 October 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.