Talk:The Planets/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 10:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Happy to review the article.

Review

We are dealing in the main with minor points here. Please cross out or tick points when they're done.

Lead section / infobox

• For the celestial body, see Planet is possibly not needed, as it's covered by For other uses, see Planet (disambiguation).

• Gone. Tim riley talk 08:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• In its supposed astrological character, the link for astrologicl doesn’t go where you might expect. I would amend the text to something like ‘the supposed astrological character of each one’, linking “astrological character of each one” to Planets in astrology.

• Done. Tim riley talk 08:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• and has remained might look better in brackets.

• Not an improvement in my view.

No worries. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• Britain – 'the UK'?

• Done.

• solar system is in capitals.

• Not according to the OED, which I think outweighs the WP article on the topic.

I don't agree (there are countless solar systems out there beyond ours, the Solar System}. You have this one, though. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• Consider linking premiere.

• Would anyone be in any doubt what it means? Smacks of WP:OVERLINK to me.

Fair point. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• In the infobox, I would have thought the suite was based on ‘Planets in astrology’, not Astrology.

• Fine. Done.

1 Background and composition

• Link Holst (with his full name given); symphonies; suite (Suite (music), the first time it occurs in the text after the lead); musicologist.

• Added duplicate link for Holst. The rest seem to me WP:OVERLINK. Would anyone reading about The Planets really have to be told what a symphony is?

Linking does more that help readers know what words mean, a link "(allows) readers to deepen their understanding of a topic by conveniently accessing other articles" (MOS:BTW). The same goes for the other links.

We must agree to differ on what or isn't an overlink.

Quite.

• Consider replacing c. with {{circa}} in the caption.

• Done, though not sure what help it is to the reader.

2 First performances

• Consider linking premiere.

• I think it is more irritating than helpful to readers to link everyday terms like this.

Understood. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• Unlink First World War (MOS:OL).

• Delighted. Quite unnecessary in my view, but I'd give it a month before someone else puts it back again. Tim riley talk 10:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

3 Instrumentation

• Introduce Ralph Vaughan Williams.

• Done.

• Source: Published score looks a little lost. Could it be placed elsewhere in the section

• I can't think where else it could go while still making it clear that it covers the whole section.

Understood. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

4 Structure

• Duplicated links: andante (in V; J; S); allegro ( in J); animato (in S); glissando (in U); lento (in U).

• They aren't duplicate links, because each links to entry in a single explanatory article, e.g. [[Glossary of music terminology#L|lento]]

Of course, whoops!. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• Apart from the timpani… I think this sentence could use a comma (or two). Please feel free ignore this!

• Modern BrE punctuation tends to overuse commas, almost certainly under the influence of AmE. I try not to use them unless they affect the sense or help the reader.

Understood. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• The images of the planets are attributed as Pablo Carlos Budassi’s own work, but he has not acknowledged his sources. What makes you think the images are copyright free?

• I don't follow you. If, as he says, he has taken the photographs himself, what sources are there to acknowledge?

It may not be important, but he didn't take any of the photographs himself, they were taken by NASA. The Wikimedia Commons files all mention NASA but don't provide links to the original photographs, so their origin cannot be verified. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I think I must be going bonkers. I have just looked at the pages on WP and Commons for the Mars and Venus pictures and can find no mention of NASA but a statement that it is the uploader's own work. Am I missing something?

NASA is mentioned in the images for Mercury/Saturn/Neptune. My apologies for not checking properly. However, our friend Budassi has used images and enhanced them, the images may not be in the public domain. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Two things arise from this: first must I therefore delete the pictures from this article, and secondly will you take steps to have them deleted from Commons to save other innocents from using them? (I ought to know better by now. I can't count the number of times a Commons image I have used has been challenged at FAC and turned out to be unacceptable. I generally avoid Commons altogether these days, but these images were not to be had elsewhere and looked ideal.)

@Tim riley: The images on the right are all from NASA and of suitable quality, as far as I can tell they have not been altered. I would use them instead. I have nominated the current images for deletion. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, thank you! That's most kind of you. Will do. Tim riley talk 16:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Mercury in true color

Venus-real color

OSIRIS Mars true color

Jupiter in true color

Saturn With Rhea and Dione (true color)

Uranus2

Neptune true colour

• Holst's own main instrument – is a bit ambiguous.

• Well, he was a trombonist, and earned a living as one in his younger days, but he was also an organist. I can't really omit the "main".

Understood, it's best left unchanged. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• Consider linking B♭ major; E major.

• Done.

• Link metre (Metre (music)).

• Done.

• The anonymous critic - ‘The anonymous critic of The Saturday Review’? (it sounds better imo)

• And in my opinion, too, but there are those who think "critic of The Saturday Review" must mean someone who criticises The Saturday Review. I try to humour such folk.

• triple forte – link to Dynamics_(music)#Dynamic_markings? (minor point)

• Done.

5 Reception

• If changed its line is idiomatic (I'm not really sure), it should be avoided.

• You mean "idiomatic" in the American sense, rather than English, I imagine. In English it means "Relating to or exhibiting the forms of expression, grammatical constructions, phrases, etc., used in a distinctive way in a particular language ... Adhering to the manner of expression considered natural to or distinctive of a language" (OED). Americans seem to think it means using fancy phrases, but it doesn't. I don't think a paper changing its line is a fancy phrase.

Agreed, many thanks for the clarification. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

6 Recordings

• Link tempi (Tempo).

• Not convinced readers will need this link, "tempo" being a fairly normal English word, but linked anyway.

7 Additions, adaptations and influences

• Could the links for the three Main Article hatnotes be incorporated into the text, and could the three subsection titles go? I think the article would be improved if they were.

• Done.

• I’d go for ‘planet—Pluto—in’. (I doubt if this is GA and it may be down to your personal preference)

• Not quite sure what you mean here.

It's a space-between-the dash thing. I think it can be dropped. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• in 2006, Pluto was changed to being a dwarf planet, not a minor planet.

• Done

• invented Plutos – I would make this more encyclopaedic (e.g. ‘composed new movements for Pluto’).

• Done.

8 Notes, references and sources

• A number of citations are missing the year, e.g. Bax, pp. 60–61.

• I give years only when the same author has books from different years cited. No point in giving the year for Bax and the other authors with only one book cited.

Understood, I forgot to check if your method was consistently applied. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• Greene - The whole of the title should be in italics.

• Not entirely persuaded, but done.

• Short - you could use this url.

• Done.

• Holst 1981 - you could use this url.

• Done.

• Holst 1986 - 1986 or 1968? The 1968 edition is available here.

• Danger of confusing the editions. Better omit the URL I think.

That's OK, I thought perhaps there might be a typo with the year. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• Leo - second ed. '2nd edition'?

• The way it is now is dictated by the cite book template. I can't say I'm wild about, but there it is.

• Kennedy - you could use this url.

• Done.

• Holst 1921 - you could use this url.

• Done

• Boult 1979 - you could use this url. The title is incorrect.

• Incorrect title? I'm looking at my copy now, and that's what it says on the title page.

Unless I've got the wrong book, the title is longer (see here).

The longer form includes the subtitle, which does not appear on spine or title page. We don't, as far as I can recall, usually print subtitles, or we'd end up referring to Charles Darwin's masterwork as On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Happy to concur. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 52 Norris - the retrieval date is I think, needed. I would include that the citation is a podcast.

• Done.

• Ref 58 The Times - you could use this.

• Ref 60 The Times - you could use this.

• Ref 61 The Times - you could use this.

• Are these Times sources authorised? I don't want to link to any sources that violate copyright.

An interesting point. I've recently started using such links following advice from Usernameunique, who showed me how to obtain them. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Two of them are clearly out of copyright (1919), and the third (1934) may well be also. Even if they weren't, however, Gale would presumably have cleared whatever copyright hurdles they need to—and, for that matter, these tiny snippets would undoubtedly constitute fair use. --Usernameunique (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

This appears to be a work-round to avoid paying Gale for the use of their scanned material. Copyright status notwithstanding I don't feel comfortable about that, and don't propose to use it, though if others take a different view, that's up to them.

As this comment was a suggestion, we can leave things as they are. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 71 Scott Rohan - is a dead link.

• Removed. The bibliographical details are sufficient without it.

• Ref 72 - full citations are I think needed from WorldCat.

• This is a pretty standard way of citing recordings, and as the link takes the reader straight to the relevant WorldCat page I don't think there would be any material gain from duplicating the details here.

Understood. AM

• Ref 76 Vaughan Williams - you could use this url.

Done

On hold

I'm putting the article on hold for a week until 17 July to allow time for the issues raised to be addressed. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Only a few points remain to be resolved (marked vividly with a cross)—thanks for all your work. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Passing

Everything looks sorted, the article is well into GA territory now. Best wishes. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for a most helpful and thorough review. Your help has most definitely improved the article. Tim riley talk 18:57, 10 July 2021 (UTC)