Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Nocturnes Op. 37 (Chopin)/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to improve it to GA status. Is this article comprehensive enough yet? Also, does anyone have any other suggestions for improvements?

Thanks, Edward130603 (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Awadewit

Thanks for working on this article! I love Chopin's nocturnes! In my opinion, this article not comprehensive enough for GA yet (see below). Here are my suggestions for improvement:

  • The lead should be a summary of the entire article per WP:LEAD. Right now, it briefly introduces the pieces and then tells us a number of people's opinions on them. These opinions should probably be in a "reception" or "legacy" section. It might be a good idea to add any influence that the piece had on subsequent pieces to such a section.
  • It might be worth briefly describing what a nocturne is and how each piece fits that genre.
  • The "Analysis" section for 37.1 should not be linked to another website - it should be presented in sourced paragraphs on Wikipedia. This kind of musical analysis should be provided for both pieces.
  • In general, the prose of the article relies heavily on quotations. I would suggest paraphrasing more. The article also includes many phrases such as "huneker commented", which interrupt the flow of the prose. Paraphrasing will remove that cumbersome style.
  • How much Chopin scholarship have you looked into? I would imagine that there is quite a bit on his nocturnes - perhaps entire books. I'm a little concerned that each book I looked at was available for preview on Google Books. While Google Books is a good starting point for research, when it comes to music scholarship, you are inevitably going to have to go to a library. Most material simply isn't available for free on the internet, unfortunately.
  • As I was reading, I was wondering about the following:
  • What about the history of the composition? The lead mentions Chopin composed the pieces in 1838. Is there a connection with anything in his life?
  • What about the history of publication? How were the pieces initially published? I know Chopin tried to make money off of some of his pieces by slightly changing them. Did that happen with these? What later important editions exist?

I hope these are helpful comments! Awadewit (talk) 02:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Scott Free

Nice article, here's a few comments -

  • To my knowledge, the following article is one of the few examples of an in-depth article on a specific classical music piece, it could be helpful for reference - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._3_(G%C3%B3recki)
  • How about a section on notable recordings and performances - are there any good CD reviews that comments on these pieces? Richter has an interesting take on the No.2 piece. I like the performances by Arrau, Rubinstein, and Moravec.
  • It would be nice to have a sound clip for No. 2
  • Here's a review that mentions the pieces-

http://www.ivanmoravec.net/albums/al-9792332.html

Hope this helps, all the best. --Scott Free (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]