Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Igor Stravinsky/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates‎ | Igor Stravinsky
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 26 June 2023 [1].

Igor Stravinsky edit

Nominator(s): MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Rite of Spring, The Firebird, Petrushka, L'Histoire du soldat, Threni... all iconic works by Igor Stravinsky, one of the most important composers of the 20th century. His approach to rhythm in The Rite revolutionized modernist music, influencing composers like Aaron Copland. Stravinsky was named one of the 100 most influential people of the 20th century by Time, and the "Sacrificial Dance" from The Rite was included on the Voyager Golden Records. This article was promoted to GA on March 10, and I put it up for peer review soon after. Excited for everyone's comments! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Suggest scaling up the Sacrificial Dance
  • Some images are missing alt text
  • File:Igor_Stravinsky_1946_(v).svg is missing original source. Ditto File:The_Rite_of_Spring_1.jpg
    • Sources added to both. Just thought I'd note that the second one was pulled from the music notation system on another Wikipedia page, and that I put it up for deletion at Commons because it's not PD in the EU. Hopefully it can stay on Wikipedia since it's PD in the US. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just noting for coords that this will need to be resolved before promotion. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Ustylug_Vol-Volynskyi_Volynska-Stravinskyi_house_after_reconstruction_in_2013-left_view.jpg needs a tag for the original work
  • File:Stravinsky_Igor_Postcard-1910.jpg needs a US tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
  • File:Nijinsky_Diaghilev_Benois_Stravinsky_Beausoleil_c1912.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Ballets_Russes_Apollon_1928.jpg
    • Added to both. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • The former will need an earlier publication to confirm the tagging. For the latter, I don't understand how it could have been published pre-1928 when it's dated circa 1928? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Added another source and fixed the date, it was actually in 1911. The title of the image says 1912, but I'm getting an error when I try to move it, so I'll fix that part later. As for Ballets Russes Apollon 1928.jpg, I tried finding a source that contains this image via Google Image Search, but to no avail. It seems this image was (as far as I know) first published without an author in the source, which is a 1929 Czech magazine. Because no copyright tag is visible anywhere, I added a defective copyright notice tag. Please let me know if this isn't the right tag to use, and if possible, which one is. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Vera_Sudeikina.jpg needs a US tag and the source link is dead
    • Added tag and archive link. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • As above, will need an earlier publication to confirm tagging for the first and third. For the second, when was this first published and which of the given rationales in the tag is believed to apply? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I apologize, but I don't understand what you mean by first and third, the only image in question is File:Vera_Sudeikina.jpg. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Apologies on the first/third issue, this was from another point. Where is this believed to have been published pre-1928? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          After searches online and through a number of books, I'm not sure where it was published before. I've removed the image from the article. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:И._Стравинский_(cropped).jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Igor_Stravinsky_(1962).tif, File:Robert_Delaunay_-_Portrait_of_Stravinsky.tif
    • Added to И._Стравинский_(cropped) and Robert_Delaunay_-_Portrait_of_Stravinsky. The second one uses {{Arquivo Nacional PD-license|URAA}}. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • As above, will need an earlier publication to confirm tagging. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Igor_Stravinsky_by_Arnold_Newman.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Stravinsky_picasso.png, File:Igor_Stravinski_6_slika_1915_žak_emil_blanš.jpg
    • Newman photo has date and place of publication in the licensing tag. The Picasso sketch has the estimated date explained under the Description, and the location of publication is explained in the Permission box. Date is present for the Blanche painting, and I assume the location is France- added. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • For Newman, what specific publication is being referenced by the tag? Keep in mind that creation date and publication date are not necessarily the same - the fact that Picasso created a sketch in 1920 does not ensure that it was published before 1928, if we don't have a source confirming that, and the information in the permission box does not provide any information on where it may have been published. And we really can't make assumptions. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Newman: After further research, I'm getting conflicted information- the initial sources that made me think there was no copyright was this one and this, which said no copyright notice was written around or on the photo. Additionally, the source on the Commons listing did not have a copyright notice. But, this source and this source say it does have a copyright stamp, and the latter says it was printed in 1980. I'm not sure what to think now- what do you think?
  • File:Stravinsky_rimsky-korsakov.jpg: source link is dead, and when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Solovey_by_A._Benois_01.jpg
    • So I've encountered an issue with Stravinsky_rimsky-korsakov.jpg- the URL isn't archived, but I was able to find the same article somewhere else on the site (which I added to the image paage). But, the image is missing within the article. It seems that many other sources pulled the image from Commons. I'm having the same issue with Solovey_by_A._Benois_01.jpg- the image isn't showing up on the archived page. Forgive my lack of experience regarding Commons, but what should I do with these? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Absent the original source, can you find other information to confirm the tagging given is correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        @Nikkimaria, I cannot seem to find any information about Stravinsky_rimsky-korsakov.jpg. I've scoured every depth of the internet, including multiple reverse image searchers, but it seems most websites seem to have gotten the image from Commons. In the same vein, I can't find any evidence that it was ever published. All I can find are confirmations that it was taken in 1908, but I can't find any other place of publication after that, nor can I find the "Russian newspaper" mentioned in the description. I still have the same issue with Solovey_by_A._Benois_01.jpg- most sites pulled from Commons, can't find any info on publication or date, and I also can't find it in any catalogs of Benois' works via Internet Archive's library. What're your thoughts? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC) I realize I just double-pinged you in a short time span, sorry about that. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd suggest replacing if possible. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Cut Stravinsky_rimsky-korsakov.jpg and Solovey_by_A._Benois_01.jpg from article. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:23, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:RIAN_archive_597702_Composer_Igor_Stravinsky_and_cellist_Mstislav_Rostropovich.jpg: source link is dead

I'm going to oppose at this point simply due to the number of issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Thank you for your image review, I'll admit the images were the (hopefully) one thing I completely forgot to check. I've fixed most of the issues, but have some comments/questions to some. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going to add a general comment at this point that will hopefully clarify some points above: creation date and publication date are not the same. If you want to include a tag saying something was published by X date, we need to be able to identify a publication before X. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria, I've made a number of changes since your previous comment. I have a few questions above, but other than that, I think I've addressed everything. Also, I added a number of images to compensate for the removed ones. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't use fixed px size
  • When and where was File:Bakst_Diaghilev.jpg first published?
    • After looking for possible publication on a number of websites and publications, I'm quite confident that it wasn't ever published. I think this mainly because the source is the virtual Russian Museum, which would mean they got possession of the portrait and scanned it. Would scanning it and putting in on their website constitute publication? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Added unpublished tag because I'm quite confident it wasn't exhibited before 1978 and it was never distributed elsewhere. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Nikolai-Tcherepnin.jpg: source link is dead. If the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Why specifically is this believed to be PD?
  • File:Nijinsky_Diaghilev_Benois_Stravinsky_Beausoleil_c1912.jpg: where is this believed to have been published before 1928? Ditto File:Rimsky-Korsakov_by_Repin.jpg, File:Lyadov_by_Repin.jpg, File:Igor_Stravinski_6_slika_1915_žak_emil_blanš.jpg, File:Robert_Delaunay_-_Portrait_of_Stravinsky.tif. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed these four images as part of a discussion below: Rimsky-Korsakov by Repin.jpg, Nikolai-Tcherepnin.jpg, Lyadov by Repin.jpg, and Claude Debussy atelier Nadar.jpg. Though, I still very much appreciate your review of the images. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I'm having trouble figuring out what to do, and I'd like to clarify some things (I apologize for my lack of understanding in advance). I added the "published before 1928 in the US" tag to a number of images, which was evidently not the right tag since I now have to prove publication. But, this is where I encounter an issue: I do not know if an image was published, and if it was, I do not know when/where.
Take this painting: File:Robert Delaunay - Portrait of Stravinsky.tif. It was painted in 1918 and is now in the New Art Gallery Walsall. I have no idea how to figure out the publication info of this. If I'm not mistaken, a public exhibition constitutes publication, but there's no exhibition history listed in the reference. Secondly, even if there was info on exhibition and it was first exhibited in, say, 2017, how does that work? Delaunay died in 1941, so why does publication still matter for this painting?
On the other hand, take this photo: File:Nijinsky Diaghilev Benois Stravinsky Beausoleil c1912.jpg. The source is a 1971 book about Nijinsky, and it was the original source listed when this FAC was opened. I don't know when the photographer died, nor do I know if it was ever published prior to this book.
Furthermore, I'm confused as to how I should tag File:Bakst Diaghilev.jpg. I don't know if it was ever published, and after immense research, I'm quite confident it wasn't. In this case, do I tag it with c:Template:PD-US-unpublished? If not, I can't verify the "published before 1928" tag, so what do I do? As you said, we can't assume it was never published in the US, but how do you prove that something didn't happen?
These are just three examples that summarize my main confusions. If we can't keep these, I'll essentially have removed 90% of the images on this article from when I opened the FAC. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Taking the last one first: as you say you can't prove a negative, so if you are reasonably confident it was never published, I'd suggest going with the unpublished tag. For cases where the image was published but you're not sure of when it was first published, go with the earliest publication you can identify, again to the reasonably-confident bar, and tag accordingly. (In terms of what counts as publication, take a look at commons:Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US). In all cases you're going to need to tag based on what you can prove, so if for example you don't know when a photographer died (and the image is recent enough you can't be certain it's out of range), you can't use a life+70 tag. And for images hosted on Commons, we need tags reflecting status in both country of origin and the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria, I've cut File:Nijinsky_Diaghilev_Benois_Stravinsky_Beausoleil_c1912.jpg. Fixed tagging on File:Igor_Stravinski_6_slika_1915_žak_emil_blanš.jpg and File:Robert_Delaunay_-_Portrait_of_Stravinsky.tif and File:Bakst_Diaghilev.jpg. I think this addresses everything- please let me know if there's anything else. If there is anything else, would you mind putting it below this comment? Makes it easier for me to keep track of. Thank you! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:Portrait_de_Picasso,_1908_(background_retouched).jpg has a dead source link and is missing information on pre-1928 publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria Cut from article. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 20:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Airship
why is there practically zero biographical information in the lead? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This (the lead) is probably the article's biggest defect as stands, besides image licensing. I would recommend looking at other composer articles and shortening the lead quite a bit. Claude Debussy, Ned Rorem and Hector Berlioz are different approaches you could look at. Aza24 (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 and @Aza24, I've edited the lead to try to reflect the general style of your suggested articles. The idea I followed was: first paragraph = name, citizenship, known for what; second paragraph = start of his musical career and rise to fame; third paragraph = more talking about his musical compositions and styles; fourth paragraph = reception, influence, death. Does this make sense, or is there a different structure I should follow? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's put it this way MyCatIsAChonk, if the only biographical information I, a complete music noob, can get from the lead are: 1) his birth/death dates, 2) the years he gained citizenship of countries and 3) what he died of, I think you might need to do a bit of refocusing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29, I've added some more to the second and fourth paragraphs. Thoughts? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aza24 edit

Going off the above, there are still a lot of issues in the lead

  • I don't think it makes sense to call him a pianist, he is not known as one and never actively performed on one throughout his life. He is not called such by Grove either for example
  • Attributing his importance in modernist music entirely to "rhythm" is at best very misleading and at worst incorrect. His usage of modal techniques, innovative orchestration decisions, polytonality (!), effect on Dance music etc. is hugely important to his influence
  • The marriages are rather irrelevant to Stravinsky's importance
  • the "Stravinsky's reception was mixed [...]" is hugely misleading. With Schoenberg, Stravinsky bolstered the entire Western Classical music world into a new era, so to say that all "composers" disliked his music is simply incorrect (this is implied by "composers and academics of the time disliked the avant-garde nature of his music"). He had many supporters in his lifetime, and there were probably very few critics who would entirely dismiss his first three ballets. The later works were more controversial (though eventually accepted after his lifetime, but still never played as much). Saying "reception is mixed" also makes him sound like a movie, there should be more nuance here
  • I would include some more examples than just Copland and Glass (Craft should not be there at all and his influence on conductors is too comparatively irrelevant to include), particularly some who are not American. Examples include Bartok, Boulez, Ligeti, etc. Also remember that his neoclassicism influenced Les Six, Kurt Weill and others... That being said we don't want to overload the lead with examples.
  • More thoughts later... might have to be later next week. Aza24 (talk) 22:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aza24, I've made a number of changes to the lead and tried to address your comments, though I'm unsure about whether I did considering my previous lack of success. Look forward to your comments! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aza24, is there more to come? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely, will try to get to it today or tomorrow. Aza24 (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ling edit

Comments by CurryTime7-24 edit

Question about Vera's surname edit
  • Posted this question on the talk page, but it probably is relevant here too. Is there any reason why Vera Stravinsky is referred to as "De Bosset" throughout the article, even in sections covering periods when she was married with IS? Walsh refers to her first as "Vera Sudeykina" then later simply as "Vera". Next to my desk is a book entitled The Salon Album of Vera Sudeikin-Stravinsky; its book information page says that its subject is "Stravinsky, Vera". Anecdotal, but my recollection is that she is typically referred to as "Vera Stravinsky", "Vera Sudeikina", or "Vera Sudeikin". Her name was legally one of the latter two when IS met her. I think he even referred to her by that surname initially in his letters. According to WP:COMMONNAME, if any of those names are more often used to "De Bosset", then the article ought to be amended to reflect that. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @CurryTime7-24, thanks for bringing this up. This point was brought up in the PR (the article used to refer to her as just "Vera") and I used de Bosset since that what her article uses. But, you raise a good point regarding her commonly used name. I've replaced instances of her name prior to marrying Igor with "Vera Sudeikin" (as to clear any confusion reading whether Stravinsky actually had an affair with Serge Sudeikin) and instances of her name after marriage with 'Vera Stravinsky" or just "the Stravinskys" if both of them were the subjects. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Russian period edit
  • The recent addition of four images relating to influences upon Stravinsky during his "Russian period" seems a bit like WP:SYNTH. Taruskin's comments are not about the period, but only refer specifically to the first act of The Nightingale ("The musical idiom of the first act adheres closely to what Asaf'yev called the 'modest, rationalized impressionism' of the early 20th-century St. Petersburg school ... there is little in the exuberantly decorative score that cannot be associated with the idiom of such older Rimsky-Korsakov pupils as Anatoly Lyadov and especially Nikolay Tcherepnin"), which he completed years before the "Russian period" designated by Noble and Bartók. Moreover, the influences mentioned for that period aren't borne out in the music or discourse about it. I know that Walsh and Craft have mentioned R-K, Mussorgsky, and Scriabin as being important influences during this period, at least at its outset, which IS later downplayed. Also, the section's final paragraph should be moved to the beginning of the section that follows. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @CurryTime7-24, I've cut the multiple image box; I added it because it felt odd with no image, and wanted to put some images of Stravinsky's influences, but I see the issue in doing these specific individuals. Also, to clarify, The Nightingale was completed during the Russian period; Stravinsky began work in 1908, putting it down to work on other things and finishing it in 1914 (a year after the period began, 1913). The paragraph has been moved. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree; the section could use a relevant image.
    A couple of issues here. First, citing Taruskin's comments here as confirming what is written in the article are, again, WP:SYNTH. This is important to note because, secondly, there seems to be confusion as to what the "Russian period" is exactly. Are we referring to the period between the Symphony in E-flat and The Firebird when IS lived in Russia (and composed Act I of The Nightingale), or the one that idiosyncratically evoked Russian folklore roughly between Petrushka and Mavra? If the latter, how to account for the overlap with the neoclassical period? If the former, why do most of the remarks in that section deal with works composed well after IS' international breakthrough? Taruskin's comments would be true enough if referring to the former period, but they are very misleading if the latter. Is there really much Lyadov and Tcherepnin in Zvezdoliki, Svadebka, and the Three Pieces for Clarinet?
    By the way, you've been doing splendid work improving this article. I've been taking notes, so to speak, for another project I hope to start with some help here next month. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @CurryTime7-24, the Russian period is definitely the period between The Rite of Spring and Pulcinella, which is where the header years (1913-1920) were gotten from. My primary understanding of this came from Bartok's comments in Stravinsky in Pictures and Documents and Stravinsky's entry in the Grove dictionary, the latter of which says the period mostly took place during his time in Switzerland. I used The Nightingale as a particular example since it's one of the essential Russian period works, but I do see how the crossover between times is confusing. I've cut the statement and added some about style, let me know what you think. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The passage is better, but the reference to The Nightingale is still confusing: its relation to this period is not explained. Take a look at the Walsh article in The Grove. His section title for this period, based on chronology and place, rather than stylistic attributes—"Exile in Switzerland, 1914–20"—better sums up the period. At the same time IS was exploring Russian mythology and folklore, he was also briefly under the spell of Schoenberg (Three Japanese Lyrics), and was beginning to pivot towards the neoclassicism that would define his work beginning in the 1920s (The Soldier's Tale, the pieces for piano four-hands). More importantly, as the lead for Walsh's article makes clear, "he never lost contact with his Russian origins and, even after he ceased to compose with recognizably Russian materials or in a perceptibly Slavonic idiom, his music maintained an unbroken continuity of technique and thought." Craft noted the Russianness of his music as late as the Requiem Canticles. Grouping discussions of his music by style, rather than by time and place, unintentionally pigeonholes a composer who, perhaps of all composers, was the most difficult to pigeonhole. As Walsh also says, "to some extent the mobile geography of his life is reflected in his work, with its complex patterns of influence and allusion." Even the grouping of thirty years' work under "Neoclassical period" is a little misleading as it does not adequately convey the difference between the neoclassical music he composed in France vs. the United States. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @CurryTime7-24, I understand most of what you're saying and have made some adjustments. But, I'm not sure what you want me to change regarding your last sentence- are you suggesting the structure of "Music" be rewritten? The idea of Stravinsky's musical periods is accepted by a number of scholars, and the specific labelling in Stravinsky's entry in the Grove Dictionary of Music is what led me to structure the section as such. Additionally, (in my opinion) the headers are not implying Stravinsky was never influenced by Russian culture after that period, they're merely categorizing his works into artistic movements particularly prevalent in his works of that time. Nonetheless, I add the Walsh's quote ("he never lost contact with his Russian origins...") under "Russian period" as a disclaimer of sorts- keep in mind I don't have access to the Grove article, so I'm trusting it's under that section. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as the reference to Act I of The Nightingale is removed, then the section is OK. Thank you very much for your edits. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More CurryTime7-24 comments edit
  • "Stravinsky befriended Robert Craft, who became his personal assistant": "Personal assistant" makes it seem like Craft was basically just Stravinsky's go-fer. He was a lot more than that. Jay S. Harrison, music editor of the New York Herald Tribune, described him as Stravinsky's "closest friend, confidant, amanuensis, spokesman, and fellow conductor"; Walsh goes so far as to say "alter ego". The term "amanuensis" is the one typically used to refer to Craft's work, but it would be very helpful if his role in Stravinsky's American career were briefly expanded on and an image included.
    • Added a more specific description, thank you for the quote. I don't think there's a good place for an image, since the TIME cover and photo of Stravinsky in 1962 are already there; besides, Commons has no clear photos of Stravinsky with Craft (as far as I can find). MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Great work. Just one more quibble. Craft is referred to earlier in the article as IS' "student". He never was; I believe the only person who ever was an acknowledged student of Stravinsky was some obscure German composer whose name escapes me at the moment. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm surprised there isn't anything mentioned in the article about Stravinsky's anti-Semitism, which both Craft and Walsh acknowledged.
    • Ths likely would've belonged best under "Political stances", but that section was cut per comments by Wretchskull above. Likely not extremely relevant for this article. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree, but I also have the feeling that if this subject is not addressed now, it will come up again. Unfortunately, it's the kind of subject that fans the flames of edit wars. Not a big deal to me, but it might be something you may want to consider. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is hardly anything mentioned about Stravinsky's American music and how he adapted his style to cater to tastes in his adopted country. This needs to be expanded. It would also help to explain how this music in some ways is distinct from the music of his French period. H. Colin Slim's Stravinsky in the Americas: Transatlantic Tours and Domestic Excursions from Wartime Los Angeles (1925–1945) would be an invaluable source for this.
    • I'm having trouble figuring out what exactly to add. I read the introduction to that book, and while it does contain very good information about the public's disregard for Stravinsky, I can't synthesize much about how he adapted to fit America's tastes. The only thing I can glean is the involvement in film scores, and that's already discussed in the article under "Early US years, 1939–1945". What specifically do you think should be expanded upon? Sorry if it seems like I'm asking you write the text for em, this is a new subject I haven't investigated much, and text synthesis isn't exactly my best ability. If you could just give me some guidance, I would be very grateful- thanks for all your comments throughout the FAC. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Basically, whereas Stravinsky wielded great or total aesthetic autonomy for music that he composed for European patrons, the music he composed on commission in the United States often resulted from his willingness to compromise or meet American tastes, particularly with respect to popular music. Consider the Circus Polka, Ebony Concerto, Scènes de ballet, even the Symphony in Three Movements. Walsh and Slim both go into detail about how concerned Stravinsky was with earning a livelihood in his early years in the United States and how this affected his musical output. It was this concern that was one of the motivating factors in his 1947 revisions of Petrushka and The Rite of Spring. If you want me to contribute, I can, but also don't want to step on your toes as you're doing excellent work here. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re. Final years and death edit
  • Is there a reason why his concert in Miami is notable enough to mention?
    • The Miami concert is likely a time placeholder, but there was one subsequent concert after this. The subsequent concert is notable because, afterwards, Craft cancelled the rest of Stravinsky's conducting appearances due to his declining health. Fixed in the article. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section could use a brief mention of Stravinsky's declining faculties as a performer, which resulted in such frequent cancellations that engagements to conduct dropped sharply in 1967. This and doctor's orders prohibiting him from traveling via plane were the main reasons for the end of his career as a conductor.
  • The passage about the 1967 Toronto concert should make clear that Stravinsky had no idea it would be his last. Walsh writes that Stravinsky had been billed to appear as conductor as late as May 1968 in Berkeley.
  • Stravinsky's final attempt at composition, the "Two Sketches for a Sonata", ought to be mentioned. Craft, for one, felt they were in a complete enough state to be considered part of Stravinsky's canon.

That's all for now. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CurryTime7-24: Thank you very much for your comments. I've left responses above, implementing most changes, and have some questions for you. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Russian period edit
  • The recent addition of four images relating to influences upon Stravinsky during his "Russian period" seems a bit like WP:SYNTH. Taruskin's comments are not about the period, but only refer specifically to the first act of The Nightingale ("The musical idiom of the first act adheres closely to what Asaf'yev called the 'modest, rationalized impressionism' of the early 20th-century St. Petersburg school ... there is little in the exuberantly decorative score that cannot be associated with the idiom of such older Rimsky-Korsakov pupils as Anatoly Lyadov and especially Nikolay Tcherepnin"), which he completed years before the "Russian period" designated by Noble and Bartók. Moreover, the influences mentioned for that period aren't borne out in the music or discourse about it. I know that Walsh and Craft have mentioned R-K, Mussorgsky, and Scriabin as being important influences during this period, at least at its outset, which IS later downplayed. Also, the section's final paragraph should be moved to the beginning of the section that follows. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @CurryTime7-24, I've cut the multiple image box; I added it because it felt odd with no image, and wanted to put some images of Stravinsky's influences, but I see the issue in doing these specific individuals. Also, to clarify, The Nightingale was completed during the Russian period; Stravinsky began work in 1908, putting it down to work on other things and finishing it in 1914 (a year after the period began, 1913). The paragraph has been moved. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree; the section could use a relevant image.
    A couple of issues here. First, citing Taruskin's comments here as confirming what is written in the article are, again, WP:SYNTH. This is important to note because, secondly, there seems to be confusion as to what the "Russian period" is exactly. Are we referring to the period between the Symphony in E-flat and The Firebird when IS lived in Russia (and composed Act I of The Nightingale), or the one that idiosyncratically evoked Russian folklore roughly between Petrushka and Mavra? If the latter, how to account for the overlap with the neoclassical period? If the former, why do most of the remarks in that section deal with works composed well after IS' international breakthrough? Taruskin's comments would be true enough if referring to the former period, but they are very misleading if the latter. Is there really much Lyadov and Tcherepnin in Zvezdoliki, Svadebka, and the Three Pieces for Clarinet?
    By the way, you've been doing splendid work improving this article. I've been taking notes, so to speak, for another project I hope to start with some help here next month. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @CurryTime7-24, the Russian period is definitely the period between The Rite of Spring and Pulcinella, which is where the header years (1913-1920) were gotten from. My primary understanding of this came from Bartok's comments in Stravinsky in Pictures and Documents and Stravinsky's entry in the Grove dictionary, the latter of which says the period mostly took place during his time in Switzerland. I used The Nightingale as a particular example since it's one of the essential Russian period works, but I do see how the crossover between times is confusing. I've cut the statement and added some about style, let me know what you think. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The passage is better, but the reference to The Nightingale is still confusing: its relation to this period is not explained. Take a look at the Walsh article in The Grove. His section title for this period, based on chronology and place, rather than stylistic attributes—"Exile in Switzerland, 1914–20"—better sums up the period. At the same time IS was exploring Russian mythology and folklore, he was also briefly under the spell of Schoenberg (Three Japanese Lyrics), and was beginning to pivot towards the neoclassicism that would define his work beginning in the 1920s (The Soldier's Tale, the pieces for piano four-hands). More importantly, as the lead for Walsh's article makes clear, "he never lost contact with his Russian origins and, even after he ceased to compose with recognizably Russian materials or in a perceptibly Slavonic idiom, his music maintained an unbroken continuity of technique and thought." Craft noted the Russianness of his music as late as the Requiem Canticles. Grouping discussions of his music by style, rather than by time and place, unintentionally pigeonholes a composer who, perhaps of all composers, was the most difficult to pigeonhole. As Walsh also says, "to some extent the mobile geography of his life is reflected in his work, with its complex patterns of influence and allusion." Even the grouping of thirty years' work under "Neoclassical period" is a little misleading as it does not adequately convey the difference between the neoclassical music he composed in France vs. the United States. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @CurryTime7-24, I understand most of what you're saying and have made some adjustments. But, I'm not sure what you want me to change regarding your last sentence- are you suggesting the structure of "Music" be rewritten? The idea of Stravinsky's musical periods is accepted by a number of scholars, and the specific labelling in Stravinsky's entry in the Grove Dictionary of Music is what led me to structure the section as such. Additionally, (in my opinion) the headers are not implying Stravinsky was never influenced by Russian culture after that period, they're merely categorizing his works into artistic movements particularly prevalent in his works of that time. Nonetheless, I add the Walsh's quote ("he never lost contact with his Russian origins...") under "Russian period" as a disclaimer of sorts- keep in mind I don't have access to the Grove article, so I'm trusting it's under that section. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as the reference to Act I of The Nightingale is removed, then the section is OK. Thank you very much for your edits. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Oppose from Wretchskull edit

Very happy to see this article on FAC!

Lede

  • Remove the ref in the infobox image caption. Image descriptions and details are not sourced in prose but in the original Commons source. Igor Stravinsky LOC 32392u.jpg is featured and contains all things necessary.
  • His legacy in the 4th paragraph still needs some work. Some opinions on whether or not his works live up to the rite shouldn't even be there, as I highly doubt that this is the consensus among musicologists, so I would remove that opening clause altogether.
  • Again regarding the previous point, early reactions to his works, such as the one in the 2nd paragraph, are good inclusions, but to synthesize that with his legacy and insinuate it as a mixed reception in the 4th is incorrect. He is widely regarded as one of the greatest and most important composers and this is maintained by scholarly consensus. These inclusions can be amended and kept in the body but not in the lede, where firm consensus of his standing should be highlighted, free from minority opinions.

Early life, 1882–1901

  • Why is Tchaikovsky not linked? I noticed that you only link the second mention of some people and musical jargon in the Music section. I understand that this is a more fitting section, but the first mentions in prose must be linked. Either only link the first mention or link both the first in the biography and the second in the Music section. Also, I would probably write the persons' full names at least once in the article.
    • Tchaikovsky's name is not linked because The Sleeping Beauty is linked in the same sentence, but I added a link to the second instance. I've added a number of other links and first names, let me know if there are any others I missed. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 17:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stravinsky composed Funeral Song, Op. 5, which was performed once" - add "in 1908".

Education and first compositions, 1901–1909

Ballets for Diaghilev and international fame, 1909–1920

Life in France, 1920–1939

  • Along with 1926, this section basically skips 1929-1933. Is Stravinsky living in Voreppe really the only thing authors are fixated on? No works? No important conversations? No deals? Why not mention his Violin Concerto, and the fact that he revised a bunch of works in this period? Just food for thought.

Last major works, 1945–1966

  • 1948-1952 is skipped except for a mention of premiering the rake's progress. Nothing notable?
    • During this time, Stravinsky became acquainted with Craft and began exploring serialist music, but this is already addressed in para 2 of "Last major works, 1945–1966". And, the growing familiarity with serialism and other Second Viennese School composers is already covered under "Music". MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1955-1960 is skipped. Ditto.
  • "In August 1967, Stravinsky was hospitalised in Hollywood for bleeding stomach ulcers and thrombosis which required a blood transfusion." Source? I'm surprised this wasn't caught earlier.
  • "While there, Stravinsky's son Fyodor held the manuscript of The Rite of Spring while Stravinsky signed it before giving it to de Bosset." Why is this relevant? Is there missing context? Did the manuscript end up somewhere?
  • Anything about his last words?

@MyCatIsAChonk: After a relatively quick read, I'm a little worried about the leaps the article makes in biographical details here and there. Still optimistic! I'll continue the review tomorrow. Wretchskull (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wretchskull: Thank you very much for your review, and I apologize for the late response, the image licensing issues have taken a great deal of time! I'll get to the bio details and lead issues soon, thank you for pointing those out. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 17:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. Continuing the review: Music

  • Perhaps add a quick explanation on how his music is categorized and divided? Explain how/why they are, and briefly mention the characteristics of each section, such as: "student works" being a product of his early influences, "the three ballets" showing deviation from his conservative musical atmosphere, and then a word on the three periods-categorization, where his mature style formed and evolved.
  • Consider informing about influences or themes that are present or recurring throughout his output and not restricted to a period.
    • The only consistent theme I can find is the Russian influence, and this is already mentioned with "According to Walsh, Stravinsky's music was always influenced by his Russian roots..." MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This whole section uses a few too many quotes IMO. I would reword lengthy ones (details below).

Student works, 1898–1907

  • "Stravinsky's "Russian period" began during his time under Rimsky-Korsakov" I assume "Russian period" pertains to him being in Russia? In that case, reword so that it isn't confused with the actual Russian period.

First three ballets, 1910–1913

Russian period, 1913–1920

  • Link nursery rhyme.
  • I have mixed feelings about the last sentence of this section. It uses a rather lengthy quote when it can easily be paraphrased, but more importantly, the whole sentence is technically WP:OR. You made it seem like Walsh was specifically describing Pulcinella; it was about his oeuvre as a whole. Kill two birds with one stone and reword the whole sentence to: "According to Walsh, Stravinsky's music was always influenced by his Russian roots, and despite their decreased use in his output, he maintained continuous musical innovation."

Neoclassical period, 1920–1951

I'll continue the review in a few hours. Wretchskull (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wretchskull, I believe I've addressed all your comments. I think I need a bit more help on the lead- I'm having a hard time summarizing his legacy past the basic "was one of the greatest composers etc etc". There were a lot of dissenters to his music in his time, which is represented in the body, but scholars' views have certainly changed today. I made some changes, let me know what you think. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't sweat it! It's looking good now. Wretchskull (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

Personality

  • Contains some good information, especially the first section, but as a whole, I'm torn on whether or not this section is necessary (details below).

Inspirations and collaborators

  • If there's more info, I would definitely consider expanding this section with details on specific literary and musical influences (plus authors, etc.), perhaps even making them separate subsections.

Political stances

  • "Towards the end of his life, at Craft's behest, Stravinsky made a return visit to his native country and composed a cantata in Hebrew, travelling to Israel for its performance." What does this have to do with his political stances? Otherwise, relocate it to the life section.
  • As a whole, I'm unsure if this entire section is even WP:DUE. Are his political stances well-covered and discussed in sources? Is it really pivotal in terms of his music and influence? A politics section on someone like Shostakovich would be more appropriate, and even there I would hesitate, but Stravinsky..?

Religion

  • Definitely influential in his musical output, but this seems to only highlight when he was/wasn't religious. I would strongly consider deleting this section entirely and move important details to his biography. Perhaps you could instead make this one of the musical influences in the first section. Please also see "General" below.
  • In summary, I personally would rename "Personality" to "Influences", and simply make separate subsections on them, such as "Musical", "Literary", and "Religious". The latter two subsections of the current "Personality" section look undue to me and are better to include in the biography. You can check out other FA musical bios if you want inspiration.

Reception

  • I don't think the first paragraph is the best way to introduce readers to Stravinsky's reception as a whole; it seems like one on The Rite. The third paragraph looks more fitting IMO. Otherwise, use anything that summarizes his works as a whole. Write a different one if you're not satisfied, but I'd amend and third paragraph a bit and order it first.
  • "There were reports of fistfights in the audience and the need for a police presence during the second act. The real extent of the tumult is open to debate and the reports may be apocryphal." These two sentences are due for the article about the composition, less so the composer. Remove them and merge the rest with the final paragraph.

Legacy

  • I think this is the best place to create a paragraph with the scholarly consensus of Stravinsky's footprint in music. I.e. as among the greatest and most important composers of the 20th century, mentioning his most important innovations, and people he influenced the most.
  • "The Rite of Spring (1913) is notable for its relentless use of ostinati, for example in the eighth-note ostinato on strings accented by eight horns in the section "Augurs of Spring (Dances of the Young Girls)". The work also contains passages where several ostinati clash against one another." Remove both sentences altogether. This is again treading deep into WP:UNDUE; The Rite has its own separate article for such details.

Honours

Recordings and publications

  • Remove "and publications" and only keep the former subsection. Move the content of the latter to the beginning of the "Writings" section. Details about book writing can be introduced into the "Books" section.

Writings

@MyCatIsAChonk: That's enough of my nagging. Tomorrow I will take a quick look at the rest of the criteria, mostly regarding sourcing, copyright, and the state of the article before and after the rewrite. Wretchskull (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General

  • Prose, sections, and topic breadth seem to be exactly based on the article prior to the rewrite. Are you sure all written content before your revamp is the optimal wording for a summary of RS sources? Similar objections regarding the sections. I now feel more strongly regarding undue sections discussed above, particularly "Personality".
  • Article is neutral, stable, well-summarized, and well-structured, but I instinctively rebel against the "Reception" section, which seems like a stew of different piece criticisms. This exists on other bios but I think merging some prose with "Legacy" and deleting the reception is the way to go; maybe too extreme though... what do you think? I think I've clamored enough about "Personality".
  • All in all, I think it would be best to amend the above points and take inspiration from other FA biographies to see how they're structured (take a skim at Nielsen, Ravel, Debussy, and Holst). Of course, coverage is dictated by topic breadth in RS sources, and all bios are structured on a case to case basis.
  • Images look great. Nikkimaria has raised all necessary licensing objections.

References

  • AGF on sources and verifiability. I'm slightly uneasy regarding WP:OR; I hope the Walsh sentence was an isolated anomaly. If you feel other quotes or paraphrases contain false synthesis, please fix them. I noticed that some information on Stravinsky's style and periods often are covered by large page ranges in sources, which worries me of WP:SYNTH. All claims in the article need to be explicitly stated in sources.
  • I've fixed some citation formatting, but AGF on cited pages and ref formatting; I don't expect major flaws.
  • Earwig doesn't expose any copyvio.

External links

@MyCatIsAChonk: I was honestly bordering on opposing this nomination for now, but you work things out rather quickly! I'll give you some time to rectify everything and hopefully you won't have to deal with my quibbles anymore. Wretchskull (talk) 11:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wretchskull, thank you for your comments, I'm very grateful for the thoroughness or your review- this is the first very big revision I've done of an article, so I appreciate the guidance. I've made lots of changes to the sections: reception and legacy have been merged (as well as cutting some stuff that was previously in reception); cut personality and replaced it with influences; expanded upon literary and artistic influences; moved publications to writings; and fixed the ISBN issues. If there's anything you think should be changed, I'm happy to do so.
Side question: You wrote , "I'm slightly uneasy regarding WP:OR; I hope the Walsh sentence was an isolated anomaly. If you feel other quotes or paraphrases contain false synthesis, please fix them." To clarify, what Walsh sentence are you referring to? I think I've fixed all OR issues. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MyCatIsAChonk: By the Walsh sentence I was referring to his quote about Stravinsky never abandoning his Russian roots in his music. My complaint is that many of these musical analyses present in the article are covered by very large page ranges, which tells me that the examples may not be explicitly stated by the authors (otherwise they would be covered by 1-2 pages) but are rather based on WP:SYNTH, i.e. combining different sentences to come to a conclusion.
Regardless, and please do not take any of this personally, I will have to oppose this nomination. Upon long reflection on this article (and other quality article contributions of yours), I'm realizing that the root of all problems are caused by the article being virtually unchanged from before the rewrite. Apart from some paragraphs, it seems that the whole overhaul was really more of "adding references" rather than a "rewrite"; the sections are unchanged, prose is almost the same, topic breadth and details are more or less unaltered, and the references still largely rely on three authors: Walsh, White, and Taruskin. No offense to you, but I don't think this article was sufficiently researched prior to the quality article nominations. I ask again: is the current prose and topic breadth truly the best possible summary of RS sources, even though it was the exact same prior to the overhaul? I question much of the article's content upon a second read after this finding. Also, for a composer as well-researched as Stravisnky, I expected dozens of other extremely crucial books to be widely used. It's not just for ref-variety, but also important biographical details, analyses, and above all, a measure of topic breadth while dictating what is WP:DUE to include.
I suggest that you withdraw this nomination, start familiarizing yourself with FA bios, read important academic books on WP:TWL, and try to question the existing content by rewriting it with a fine comb on prose and a thorough look in books. Please don't be discouraged by this review; I'd be happy to help out with whatever time I get. Wretchskull (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wretchskull and MyCatIsAChonk: Would you consider temporarily withholding your opposition if I helped out with this article? I have in my personal library a number of sources which are not cited here and could be useful in closing up any potential shortcomings. If so, I could start work on Tuesday (PDT). —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CurryTime7-24: A FAC is supposed to simply be quick, minor patch-ups for an article that is close to being finished. This one has been significantly overhauled and is now in need of—for the most part—a top-to-bottom rewrite while including many other books. After reaching GA, almost everything was unchanged apart from sourcing, which in itself is problematic. Happy to help after this closes, but I'll say that I do not at all see a horizon for this article being a GA, let alone a FA. Wretchskull (talk) 09:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see then. The nomination has been withdrawn. Thank you for your very thorough review and help throughout this process. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gerda edit

I was there in the peer review, but will read once more over the next days. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read most of life, and found that you adopted may of my PR comments. Just it-picking:

Lead

  • "Born to an established bass opera singer" - I'd expect the mother, - can we specify it's the father?
  • "the last of which brought him international fame after the near-riot at the premiere and changed the way composers understood rhythmic structure" - how about a comma, to avoid "the premiere and changed"?
  • "Stravinsky's last major work was the Requiem Canticles (1966), which was performed at his funeral." - work is singular, canticles is plural, - how about dropping "the" (Requiem Canticles)?
  • I'd expect some more information about his personal life in a FAC.
    • I'm having a lot of trouble implementing an equal amount of info here. I tried adding some info about his marriages, but Aza24 pointed out it was irrelevant to Stravinsky's importance. What particular information do you think should be added? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

  • why the Ustilug house so early when connected to his father-in-law?
  • chronology would have the ballet visits at age 8 before the piano lessons at age 9

Education

Ballets

US

to be continued --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: I've addressed your comments, with some questions above, specifically regarding the lead. Thank you very much for another review! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re. the Requiem Canticles: I have never seen it referred to without the article preceding. Walsh refers to it invariably as "the Requiem Canticles" in the second volume of his Stravinsky bio (e.g. "Stravinsky had left for Europe in May with the Requiem Canticles almost, but not quite complete", p. 521). So did Craft, including in his late Down a Path of Wonder from 2006 (e.g. "I am responsible for the abbreviation of the text from Verdi's Requiem for the Requiem Canticles; the source was the contents page of the Eulenberg miniature score", p. 185). Ditto Leon Botstein in his essay that concludes Stravinsky and his World from 2013 (e.g. "Stravinsky’s meticulous habits in the process of composition, as understood by theorists and as evident in the manuscripts of The Rake’s Progress and the Requiem Canticles (to cite just two often reproduced examples), suggest that Nabokov and Stravinsky shared an innovative combinatorial genius", p. 331). —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hal edit

  • "Latin, Greek, and Slavonic; and French, German, and his native Russian" -- What's the point of the semicolon?
  • "not all of which have survived" seems like it could be made more concise.
  • In only two instances, a references is not placed immediately after punctuation. I might eliminate those for consistency, as other sentences that are sourced with multiple references have their numbered citations clumped after the period/comma.

Those are my only nit-picks. Fantastic work. ~ HAL333 16:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333, I think I've addressed your comments, thank you for your review! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 17:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi HAL333, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've chewed this over for a while, and believe it would be best if the nominator withdrew this candidate to refine it a bit further. The sourcing looks great, but a think a second dive into the literature would improve this article. The prose isn't quite there, and the lead and some parts of the body should be rewritten. I also recommend then putting it through the Guild of Copy Editors. It's good work—biographies are the most difficult articles to write in my opinion—and it's 85-90% of the way there. ~ HAL333 03:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The nomination has been withdrawn. Thank you for your review. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination per requests from Wretchskull and Hal. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ping for @Gog the Mild. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Withdrawing nomination as requested. The usual two-week hiatus will apply.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Igor_Stravinsky/archive2&oldid=1162098054"