# Talk:Ned Rorem

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ned Rorem/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Theepicosity (talk · contribs) 20:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

 
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

This is a really well made article! A cursory examination shows a really well made and researched article, with excellent writing and sourcing throughout. Of course, as I continue to look through my cursory lens I can notice a few important flaws that prevent me from nominating it as such at this time.
It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar): 

The prose is clear and concise; everything that is explained is explained very well in a logical sequence. The writing is understandable to me, it reads very well in the way that a Wikipedia article should. The spelling and grammar are fine.
b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

The article does not comply with the MOS guideline for lead sections; the lead contains far too much extra detail for it to be useful. The lead should be more concise and omit extraneous details that the average reader would not be interested in, and instead save those details for the body paragraphs. (MOS:INTRO) It also doesn't comply with the MOS guidelines on words to watch; I believe it has too much puffery.
I'm not exactly sure how to address this without more specific example. Everything is rigorously sourced to the body so I find puffery heard to believe. I'm hesitant to remove much more from the lead, since it is certainly the only thing that many readers will even read to begin with. Aza24 (talk) 04:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Sure, I can give a more specific example! Just looking at the first paragraph, there are certainly some things that can be rewritten in a better and more concise way that effectively summarizes the article:
Ned Miller Rorem (October 23, 1923 – November 18, 2022) was an American composer of contemporary classical music and a writer. He is best known for his over 500 art songs centered around the setting of poetry. As a writer, he is known for the numerous diaries of his exchanges with many cultural figures of America and France.
This is a much better first paragraph because it effectively communicates who the subject is in a clear and concise manner. It avoids giving too much extraneous detail about the subject, which in this case, is already expanded on in the "Music" section. You can choose to keep this paragraph or write it in a way that presents information that may be more relevant- I'm not that much of an expert, so I will have to trust your judgement on what is important for this person. ;p
In general, though, the second and third paragraphs are much the same, albeit slightly better. I would question the need to list all of his influences and all of his mentors. I also believe that it can be rewritten closer to summary style, rather than keeping with the prose-style present in the body.
As another example, you may compare this article to the one on Claude Debussy; the body paragraphs have a similar style to the one you have employed here, but the lead section is much more to the point- it starts with a succinct description of who he was an why he was important. Then it gives a brief summary of his life, then lists some of his notable works, and then closes with a short of his style and influence. It's everything that the average reader would want; anything more specific than that should go into the body paragraphs.
As for puffery, I will admit that looking at it now, I don't think puffery is all that prevalent.
Hopefully this is understandable enough that you can continue to polish it even more! ^^ Theepicosity (talk) 05:47, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Ah I see, using Tim's Debussy article as an example is rather convincing. I've moved stuff around further to hopefully improve it. Might rethink the final paragraph at some point. Aza24 (talk) 06:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Sure! Just tell me when you have finished, and I will update the rating accordingly. Theepicosity (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi Theepicosity, I think I'm ready for you to take another look. I've minimized the details in the second paragraph and moved (to the body) some of the more specific observations of his musical style. I thought that moving the Neoromantic-but-not-modernist line up would be fitting, akin to the Impressionism line in Debussy's article. In addition, I've addressed some of your minor critiques below as well. Best – Aza24 (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I quite like the lead section now, it is much more concise and gives a very convincing breakdown of the most important points of his life and career. I am happy to say that this does indeed now fit with the MOS guildine for lead sections. :D  Theepicosity (talk) 00:39, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! A pleasure working with you – Aza24 (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section): 

The article includes a list of citations.
b. (citations to reliable sources): 

The article includes in-line citations from reliable sources. In particular, all opinions and quotations are cited. All praise and other comments on the author, as well as specific details about the author's life, are also supported with citations. I also have to appluad the author on the diversity of sources used; a lot of them are from books, but there are also quite a few articles and online publications, too! If I had one complaint, it would be that a lot of the online sources seem to be content-locked. However, the sources are definitively reliable.
Thanks. I removed some more quotations to lessen the reliance on them and added archived sources to hopefully help address the occasional content lock. Aza24 (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
c. (OR): 

This article contains no original research. All potentially subjective material stated in this article is pulled directly from their respective sources.
d. (copyvio and plagiarism): 

The article contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Earwig's tools gives a potential match, but upon closer inspection, it is just close paraphrasing.
It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects): 

The article is both broad and comprehensive.
b. (focused): 

The article is somewhat focused on the topic. There are a few diversions which detract from the length ever so slightly- mostly referring to people who are not significant to the artists life: a good example is in the last sentence of the first paragraph of the "Childhood and Youth" section, where the article lists several works that the artist saw as a child, with no indication that these artists had influence on the subject of the article; another good example is in the second sentence of the second paragraph of the section "France & Morocco," where the article mentions Nadia Boulanger literally because the subject didn't take help from her. This type of reference strikes me as unnecessary, and I think that the article could be improved by removing the name-dropping and potential excessive use of quotations. However, these diversions are short, only one sentence long, and they only detract slightly from the readability.
Interesting thoughts. I largely agree with the first example, but have moved the names to a note instead of removing completely as the sentence seems rather vague with some examples. The Nadia Boulanger thing I find extremely notable. Rorem (& incidentally Gershwin as well) would have been one of hundreds of American music students who didn't study with Boulanger. Many musicians even went to Paris just work with her. Aza24 (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
I am not such an expert on Nadia Boulanger, so I will take your word that it is notable that he didn't study with her. Theepicosity (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

The article is neutral. The article does give a lot of praise, but the downfalls of the subject are indeed well provided for.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

The article is stable. It hasn't been substantially edited in a couple of months.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): 

The article is illustrated! The main picture is given good rationale for fair use, which I like.
b. (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

The media is relevant. The relevance of the images is slightly in questions, but the captions make it clear how they relate to the main subject. The external videos are wonderful in providing context!
Overall:
Pass/fail: 

After being on hold for a bit, I can now happily say that this article has met the criteria and is a good article! :)
(Criteria marked  are unassessed)

While William Coble, Daniel Ott, Norman Stumpf, Eric Sessler, Robert Convery, James Helgeson, and the Scottish composer David Horne did study with Ned Rorem at the Curtis Institute in his studio, Jennifer Higdon was, in fact, a student of David Loeb's at Curtis; although she did attend masterclasses given by Rorem, and served as a member of the faculty with him, she technically did not study with him. In addition, I would propose that Roger Briggs be removed from the list of composers who studied with Rorem at Curtis, as Mr. Briggs never attended the Curtis Institute. (Should I provide cited pages from the Curtis Institute website for these proposals?) Neil Erickson (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@Neil Erickson Thanks for this. It appears that Higdon's direct study can indeed not be confirmed in RS (those which include it appear to be copying the also uncited assertions on her WP bio). I've removed Higdon and adjusted Briggs.
For the others, to establish notability we would need RS which are independent from the topic (so not Curtis sources) and ideally the proposed student should also have a WP article. Otherwise we'd have free range to list dozens of people, which would surpass proper RS coverage standards. Aza24 (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your care and guidance in this matter. I will continue my research. Neil Erickson (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)