Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Sonata in C major for piano four-hands, D 812 (Schubert)

< Template:Did you know nominations
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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Sonata in C major for piano four-hands, D 812 (Schubert)

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Francis Schonken (talk). Self-nominated at 11:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation

QPQ: No - Not done
Overall: Very interesting article, nice to see that some of Schubert's works are being elevated to Good Article status! QPQ needs to be done though. GeneralPoxter (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Hard to believe that an article about a composition made it to GA without covering the music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the Movements section could be expanded and significantly improved, especially since it's dwarfed by the sheer amount of written excerpts in the article, but I can see how it made it to good status. GeneralPoxter (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Seems like Gerda didn't even look at the article, so I wouldn't give too much thought to their ill-informed criticism. As it happens, the description of the music in this GA has about an average length compared to other GAs about a single composition. Also, hardly here the right place to talk about whether or not the music is covered well in the article: the right place for that is Talk:Sonata in C major for piano four-hands, D 812 (Schubert) (who would even remember that there's some commentary about the content of the Sonata article in this place a few weeks from now?)
So, @Gerda Arendt: (1) please clean up your act, your semi-jealous jab above, obviously not based on facts, doesn't behoove you; (2) If you have improvement suggestions for the article, they're of course welcome at Talk:Sonata in C major for piano four-hands, D 812 (Schubert), and/or WP:SOFIXIT, the next step might be WP:FAC for this article, and your contribution to getting it there would of course be appreciated. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@Francis Schonken: I wouldn't characterize Gerda's comment as a "semi-jealous jab" (though I must disagree with their claim that it is "hard to believe" that your article made good status). Regardless, I do not believe Gerda was trying to discredit your undoubtedly hard and dedicated work on this quality article. I recommend setting aside what seems to me as a misunderstanding, and focus on the issue at hand. I really would like to see this article make it to the front page, but QPQ still needs to be satisfied. GeneralPoxter (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Did Gerda Arendt perhaps admit their misunderstanding? I don't think so. Last time I checked they were WP:FORUMSHOPping their misunderstanding, now also trying to discredit the editor who approved the GA. I don't think such attitude helps to overcome misunderstandings. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I see. Personally, Gerda does not come across as an editor who would intentionally take potshots, but I think you should take this issue to their talk page. As for the DYK, I really think the focus should be towards the QPQ. GeneralPoxter (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Can you explain the "less than 5 DYK credits" exception to me? Was trying to get my head around that. Afaik I have zero of such credits (can't even fathom what they are). As you can imagine I'm not too committed to the DYK process: rarely come here, because to me the system rather seems something for newcomers in search of confirmation. I've been around long enough without needing that kind of confirmation. I looked around for DYK nominations that weren't yet adopted by a reviewer, but couldn't find one that tickled my curiosity enough to engage in. Will keep an eye open for what shows up there in the next few days. Re. "I really would like to see this article make it to the front page" – if that's the case, I'd say, use whatever your imagination might inspire you to do to make it happen. From my side, it's just an offer to have an interesting DYK: I'm rather committed to improving articles than bask in the fleeting glory of seeing the result of that on main page for a few hours. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
here - as far as I remember, many were co-nominations where I supplied the qpq, - quite likely not 5 self-nominations - hope that helps. Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt:
  1. Can you retract your comment above (and wherever else you wrote it) that the article "made it to GA without covering the music"? It is a lie. GeneralPoxter thinks it unintentional, but that makes no difference: if it was unintentional you should even have less qualms about retracting it.
  2. Please also look to it that those prior DYK nominations where you drew me in against my prior knowledge & will are removed from my DYK credits record? I'm sure you'll be able to find out who can do that, and ask them. If I remember correctly you were even able to cleanse any record of your prior ArbCom troubles, so this one should be far simpler.
When that's done, and you stop mentioning me directly or indirectly on user talk pages (except to get the second step above done), I think we're good again. At least from my side. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@Francis Schonken: It's really not about "fleeting glory" but about increasing the audience of the article. It's a well put together article about a wonderful piece, and it would be a shame if more people could not read and learn about it because of a minor QPQ issue. Now as for DYK credits, it seems to me that any nominations that attribute you as a contributor to a DYK (regardless of whether you were the nominator) count. I could be mistaken, but this is the impression I get when I visit the QPQ check and read the DYK page. GeneralPoxter (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
If the article is good, people will come to it without the DYK exposure. If it's true that there's no such thing as bad publicity: there's been quite some exposure for the article in the last 24H too! --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think that is too strict. When I included credit as thanks for helping with an article that should not be counted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that makes sense. I didn't look very carefully at the credits the first few times. Given that this is indeed Francis Schonken's first nomination for DYK, I'll waive the QPQ. I am sorry about causing such a fuss over this DYK, and I hope we can all come from this on good terms with each other. GeneralPoxter (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. Francis, I am sorry that you seem to have misread my post, - the stress should have been on covering, per crit. 3, "Broad coverage, focus on the topic". I suggest that you expand the coverage of the music, based on analysis which is available, best before it hits the Main page, but the latest before a peer review. There is no need to say anything extra on the article talk page, because this review is transcluded to there. Reviews should contain only comments regarding article quality. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: you still need to *retract* that the article "made it to GA without covering the music". It covered the music. Not only that, its coverage of music is about as "broad" as the coverage of the music in your GAs. So, show that your first comment above (and wherever else you produced the same) was not intended maliciously: it was wrong, whether intended maliciously or not, so it should in any case be retracted. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
That's not something for the DYK. As for problems with the article; Sonata_in_C_major_for_piano_four-hands,_D_812_(Schubert)#Movements is way too short of a section on musical analysis; the one example of sheet music seems like mere tokenism (and in addition, it's not even Schubert's version) - the score extension being disabled doesn't help, but pictures of appropriate extracts (main themes, ideas, ...) are always an alternative (this can be screenshotted either from a score or from your favourite score editing program); and all of that is anyway dwarfed by the massive amount of quotes [which would do better with being summarised, and also with dropping the original German text, which would do better on some place like Wikisource]); some MOS issues (WP:CITEBOMB is particularly apparent). Now, again, that can and should be resolved via the editing process or on the article talk page, without asking for retractions or getting personal disputes into it. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Re. "That's not something for the DYK" – nor are your comments. That was my point all along. Gerda's "... made it to GA without covering the music" comment above was boorish, and doesn't belong in a DYK. Because of the factual error in it I asked Gerda to retract it, and in my very first reply above I asked her to take improvement suggestions for the article to Talk:Sonata in C major for piano four-hands, D 812 (Schubert). When Gerda posted a similar remark at the reviewer's talk page, they were told the comment didn't belong there either, and that the correct place for observations about Good Article Reviews is Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. Then, instead of using either place, Gerda took it upon herself to WP:CANVASS the topic in user talk space. So no, this doesn't belong here, neither Gerda's jab, nor your improvement suggestions. Nor does it belong in user talk space. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Sonata_in_C_major_for_piano_four-hands,_D_812_(Schubert)&oldid=1012594096"