Template:Did you know nominations/Bridal Suite (Bernstein)
- 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 SL93 (talk) 03:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Bridal Suite (Bernstein)
- ... that Leonard Bernstein composed the piano suite Bridal Suite for the wedding of Adolph Green and Phyllis Newman, with the bride meant to play the upper part one-hand, and the groom the lower part two-hands? Source: several
- Reviewed:
to come - Comment: We could get more mysterious saying three-hand piano music.
- Reviewed:
Created by Ron Oliver (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 11:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC).
The article was created in time and is long enough. A QPQ is still pending. The hook fact is actually really good and I like it! However, it's also 200+ characters long and thus needs to be significantly shortened. Nevertheless, it's cited inline and verified in the source. The article also has a number of issues. For example, the "Recordings" section has a sentence that goes "Following is...": it should be "The following is...". Indeed, I would suggest that the article be copyedited for grammar since there are some parts in the article that don't sound right (such as "its uncommon and undemanding", but it seems to be missing a word after "undemanding"). In addition, the "Structure" section's first part is unreferenced. And speaking of the "uncommon and undemanding" part, the claim about the piece being that and the piece being rarely played is also unsourced. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for liking, and perhaps you can help with the trimming, depending on what could go first.We could pipe to "Berstein", but at that point we don't know it's the famous composer. Perhaps we could do without "suite" but I thought it helps with the double meaning. Perhaps we could just say "she" and "he" instead of "bride" and "groom"? We could go without "two-hand" as the normal way to play a piano? We also could make people curions:
- ALT1: ... that Leonard Bernstein composed the piano suite Bridal Suite for the wedding of Adolph Green and Phyllis Newman, with the couple meant to play it three-hands?
- "undemanding" is an adjective for music that can be played by beginners and lay people, expressing that true pianists are not tempted to play it, because they can't show off. - The other points are for Ron to fix. Please ping him next time, - he's not a DYK regular watching anyway. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry for that. I tried to fix a few things. I'm afraid I can't find a source for the "undemanding" segment, but I thought that was a fair assumption, since slow triad chords are very basic even for learners. Regarding the piece being played rarely, I believe that is just a fact: the world premiere recording was taken just 5 years ago (the piece is +60 years old) and I haven't been able to find a recording of it which was not released in a complete piano music collection. That is obviously my observation, and I'm happy to remove it if you feel I crossed a line there. Let me know if there's anything else that needs to be fixed. Ron Oliver (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- If those are observations then there could be OR/SYNTH issues and thus I would suggest simply deleting them from the article. Other article issues such as copyediting and sourcing still need to be addressed before the article is passed, although I like ALT1 since I'm pretty sure it's rare for a musical piece to be written for bridal couples to perform them :) Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- While the article wouldn't suffer if "undemanding" was removed I also don't see the slightest problem having it. If a piano part is for only one hand and simple that's "undemanding" for everybody's observation, such as a flower in an image could be described as "red" even if no source says so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- The thing is, saying that a piece is "undemanding" without a source would be original research since that would be an editor's interpretation rather than one given by sources, and original research is a big no-no in articles. Indeed, WP:DYK states that information in an article needs to be verifiable, which original research can't meet. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- If there's a picture with a red flower, we can speak of "the red flower". Likewise for a piece with simple chords in one hand, that's "undemanding". It's not "research". Research would be that "the fiery red of that flower is a symbol of" (whatever). Do you see the difference? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Basically, the issue here is simply that the piano piece being "undemanding" is not referenced in the article, and as Ron Oliver suggested was actually an observation that wasn't based on a source (which technically means that it's WP:OR). If a source can't be found for the statement it will need to be deleted for the article to be approved for DYK, otherwise the nomination cannot move forward. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'd normally just give up, but would so much like to understand you better. Do we agree that if a flower on a painting is red, we may say so - as just an observation everybody can objectively make (if not blind or colourblind)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- A flower being red is a WP:BLUE case, it doesn't need to be cited because it's obvious. It's objectively red, the only disagreement could be the exact shade. By contrast, a piano piece being easy or difficult is not something that is immediately obvious. Even easy piano pieces can be difficult for some, and some pieces that may be hard to play for some may in fact be easier for others, and vice-versa. A piece's difficulty is more subjective and thus if it is to be mentioned that a piece is easy or hard to play, a source stating so needs to be provided. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- I have no problems removing it but, after reading your discussion, I still believe this is a WP:BLUE case. A triad chord is, quite frankly, one of the simplest things you can do on a piano and one of the few things you learn how to do in your first piano classes. We are talking about perception here and, in this case, the piece being undemanding is as true as the sky being blue (it can also be red or green). Would "relatively undemanding" be better in this instance? Ron Oliver (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- The real issue here is really more of it being an unsourced subjective statement. If there's no source saying that it's an easy piece, then even if it really is an easy piece, it can't be in the article. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Sure, no problem. It's gone now. Ron Oliver (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- I reviewed now Template:Did you know nominations/Sukanya Ramgopal. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- The real issue here is really more of it being an unsourced subjective statement. If there's no source saying that it's an easy piece, then even if it really is an easy piece, it can't be in the article. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- I have no problems removing it but, after reading your discussion, I still believe this is a WP:BLUE case. A triad chord is, quite frankly, one of the simplest things you can do on a piano and one of the few things you learn how to do in your first piano classes. We are talking about perception here and, in this case, the piece being undemanding is as true as the sky being blue (it can also be red or green). Would "relatively undemanding" be better in this instance? Ron Oliver (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- A flower being red is a WP:BLUE case, it doesn't need to be cited because it's obvious. It's objectively red, the only disagreement could be the exact shade. By contrast, a piano piece being easy or difficult is not something that is immediately obvious. Even easy piano pieces can be difficult for some, and some pieces that may be hard to play for some may in fact be easier for others, and vice-versa. A piece's difficulty is more subjective and thus if it is to be mentioned that a piece is easy or hard to play, a source stating so needs to be provided. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'd normally just give up, but would so much like to understand you better. Do we agree that if a flower on a painting is red, we may say so - as just an observation everybody can objectively make (if not blind or colourblind)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Basically, the issue here is simply that the piano piece being "undemanding" is not referenced in the article, and as Ron Oliver suggested was actually an observation that wasn't based on a source (which technically means that it's WP:OR). If a source can't be found for the statement it will need to be deleted for the article to be approved for DYK, otherwise the nomination cannot move forward. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- If there's a picture with a red flower, we can speak of "the red flower". Likewise for a piece with simple chords in one hand, that's "undemanding". It's not "research". Research would be that "the fiery red of that flower is a symbol of" (whatever). Do you see the difference? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- The thing is, saying that a piece is "undemanding" without a source would be original research since that would be an editor's interpretation rather than one given by sources, and original research is a big no-no in articles. Indeed, WP:DYK states that information in an article needs to be verifiable, which original research can't meet. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- While the article wouldn't suffer if "undemanding" was removed I also don't see the slightest problem having it. If a piano part is for only one hand and simple that's "undemanding" for everybody's observation, such as a flower in an image could be described as "red" even if no source says so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- If those are observations then there could be OR/SYNTH issues and thus I would suggest simply deleting them from the article. Other article issues such as copyediting and sourcing still need to be addressed before the article is passed, although I like ALT1 since I'm pretty sure it's rare for a musical piece to be written for bridal couples to perform them :) Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the edits. However, "This suite has been performed very rarely" remains unsourced. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- No sources are going to say that explicitly, so it's gone. Ron Oliver (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. The nomination will be good to go once a copyedit has been accomplished. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Having been copy-edited to remove the possibly contested word "unchallenging," this is ready for DYK. Thanks to Ron Oliver, Gerda Arendt, and Narutolovehinata5 for their work to improve this interesting article. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
