# Talk:Maxim Berezovsky

How could he have been a Ukrainian composer if there was no Ukraine, he was a Russian subject, lived in St. Petersburg, wrote in Russian and spoke Russian? For all other countries the citizenship determines the identity, why should here be a postfactum invented ethnicity?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.55.162.168 (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC) 

Could we have please more arguments that Berezovski is the most common spelling than just one source? WP:RUS would give Berezovsky, and if we have decided not to follow it, we must have good arguments that Berezovski is way more common than Berezovsky in modern reliable sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Should be Berezovsky by all translit standards.--Aristophile (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

We already had one user who was indefinitely blocked for persistent addition of claim that Berezovsky was an Ukrainian composer, without reliable sources. Now we have a brand new user adding the same claim, again without sources, and edit-warring. I am afraid one more revert and we go off to arbitration enforcement again.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

We now have plenty of sources, but the user Ushkuynik is not interested is discussing the matter.--Aristophile (talk) 23:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
User:Ymblanter, if someone was blocked for adding that fact, perhaps they ought to be unblocked. —Michael Z. 02:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, the user behaved inappropriately, was taken to arbitration enforcement, got a topic ban from Ukraine, completely ignored it, was taken to the arbitration enforcement again, and got an indefinite block.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
For “persistent addition of claim that Berezovsky was an Ukrainian composer”? That’s not inappropriate. Who was it? We can appeal arbitration enforcement’s decision. It’s never to late to right a wrong. —Michael Z. 06:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
That was User:KHMELNYTSKYIA, however, if you want to appeal the AE, I would really recommend you to look at their contributions first. I personally think that the English Wikipedia is better off without this user.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, neither Ukrainian identity, nor Ukrainian state existed when this man was still alive. Let's stick to historical reality. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

“Claim” is a loaded word for the only theory presented. Are there any hypotheses or claims he was born in Russia? —Michael Z. 23:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm anxious to know too.--Aristophile (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
I looked through the cited sources. This is ridiculous. Not one says any of this:
“Some researchers claim”
“this hypothesis”
“no hard evidence exists for this information”
“the place of his birth [is] uncertain”
“The question of whether Berezovsky was born in Hlukhiv or studied there could not be resolved and is still a matter of some dispute”
Many sources say he was born in Hlukhiv. Some don’t say where he was born. The rest is bunk. I am cleaning this up. —Michael Z. 02:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
User:Ушкуйник, Please participate in the discussion instead of reverting to an article intro that ignores its own sources by including patent nonsense. We’ve been through this before, and refusing to discuss has only wasted your time and a lot of everyone else’s. —Michael Z. 16:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Michael Z., it's absolutely unknown where he was born. His life story was reconstructed in a short novel written in 1840 by Nestor Kukolnik, but there is no any historical evidence about Berezovsky's life in Gluchov/Hlukhiv. It is even not clear whether he was in the area of Ukraine at all. Ушкуйник (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
It’s absolutely known that reliable sources say he was born in Hlukhiv. You’ve literally just summarized some historical evidence on this page. If you have a source that says “there is no historical evidence” and “it is not clear whether,” then please share it. Otherwise, please don’t add your WP:Original Research in the form of this synthesis to the article. —Michael Z. 18:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Listed here as among "best Ukrainian composers] with strong childhood connection to eastern Ukraine. Since both Ukraine and Russia claim him, why not have a shortdesc of "Ukrainian and Russian"? HouseOfChange (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
::::That above is not wp:reliable source. Please check the article Name of Ukraine. From the 18th century on, Ukraine became known in the Russian Empire by the geographic term Little Russia. At the turn of the 20th century the term Ukraine became independent and self-sufficient, pushing aside regional self-definitions. In the course of the political struggle between the Little Russian and the Ukrainian regional identities, it challenged the traditional term Little Russia and ultimately defeated it in the 1920s. The composer is described in many reliable sources as Russian, Ukrainian or even as Russian*Ukrainian. However per historical reality in his own time the term Ukraine was very rarely used if ever used and had different geographic meanings. Jingiby (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 Per A Short History of Opera by Donald Grout, "Some of the Ukraine's earliest operatic composers were Maxim Berezovsky .. and Dmitri Bortnyansky...Although their models were Italian opera, they were nevertheless able to introduce aspects of their native culture into the scores..." Bach is a "German" composer even though modern Germany didn't exist in his day, says Gerda Arendt. The arcana about little Russia and Russia's past and present claims that Ukraine is part of Russia shouldn't erase Ukraine from his biography when many RS attest it. Update, "Russian and Ukrainian" looks like a good solution, thanks Jingiby. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
I guess by the time of Bach’s life, the Holy Roman Empire was mainly a German state. But Chopin was born in the French empire, grew up in the Russian empire, then lived in France, but he’s not a “French, Russian, and Polish composer.” Liszt is not an “Austrian, German, and Hungarian composer.” There’s a broad inconsistency in the imposition of colonial labels onto Ukrainian figures. —Michael Z. 20:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
This seems a contentious matter that won't go away, as new editors arrive here from RS that say different things. Maybe somebody could create a neutrally-phrased RfC to get broader input, after which we could point to the consensus there in future disputes. Classical composers are not my specialty (tho I reviewed a DYK that mentioned Berezovsky) so I am taking this lively dispute off my watchlist. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Dear Yezheha, I would kindly ask you to stop changing the title of the article. The current transliteration is based on encyclopedias and studies by specialists in musicology (e.g. Marina Ritzarev) written in English. Ушкуйник (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

The references are not consistently formatted at present, but I want to use the Harvard system when working on the article, which I intend to raise to GA level. Please comment if you have any objection. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey @CurryTime7-24 why did you revert[1] the correct spelling of Hlukhiv? There’s no reason to use the Russian exonym for a city in Ukraine.  —Michael Z. 00:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Usage at the time was likely based either on the Polish or Russian names for the city, if historical names for cities presently within the boundaries of modern Ukraine are any indication. Save for the section on Berezovsky's legacy, this article discusses events that occurred while Glukhov was a city in Russia, not modern Ukraine. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
That’s imposing a colonial POV, and violating our guidelines.
Ukraine was a country in the Russian empire. Hlukhiv was in the Cossack Hetmanate, the Little Russian gubernia, then the Chernihiv gubernia, all recognized as parts of Ukraine including while it was colonized by the Russian empire. But this is not how we choose names. “Usage at the time” (“was likely”!?) is not really relevant.
WP:USEENGLISH
MOS:GEO: “A place should generally be referred to consistently by the same name as in the title of its article (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)). An exception may be made when there is a widely accepted historical English name appropriate to the given context.”
WP:MODERNPLACENAME: “older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts when a substantial majority of reliable modern sources do the same.”
I went through the cited sources, and found English-language ones that give his birthplace or refer to the Hlukhiv Singing School:
Hlukhiv:
Encyclopedia of Ukraine (updated 2011)[2][3]
Grove Music Online (2001, Oxford):[4] “(b Hlukhiv, 16/Oct 27 . . .”
Glukhov:
Historical Dictionary of Russian Music (2012, Scarecrow Press), p 145, uses Glukhov but glosses it as “Glukhov (Hlukhiv)” in the main entry[5]
CD notes (2003, The Russian Television and Radio Broadcasting Company, Moscow)[6]
The MODERNPLACENAME requirement for an exception is not met according to this small survey of directly relevant sources.  —Michael Z. 18:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Friend, I'm not sure what the problem is here. Historical place names are typically used within articles when chronologically appropriate. Otherwise, Béla Bartók would be born Sânnicolau Mare, not Nagyszentmiklós; or Immanuel Kant in Kaliningrad, not Königsberg. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
No, that's not true. For example, we don’t refer to Kyiv as “Kiow” or “Kiovia” in articles about the centuries before it was called either Kyiv or Kiev in English.
And Hlukhiv’s name never changed. You are trying to impose a colonial Russian exonym on a place in Ukraine, when the majority of reliable sources do not do so. Berezovsky was from the city that was called both Глухів and Глухов in the respective languages when he was born, and is has been called both Hlukhiv and Glukhov in English recently. Guidelines say to use the modern English name unless the substantial majority of sources do otherwise.
(If you’re arguing that we should call it what it was called in English in 1745, know that no guideline says this and by the way, it was Gluchow.)  —Michael Z. 19:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm on board with Gluchow, no problems there. It also confirms my belief that usage at the time was probably derived either from the Polish or Russian names. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Again, not related to the guidelines and MOS.  —Michael Z. 20:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Which are ambiguous. If they weren't, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It also confuses matters when you say that this locale's name "never changed", but then later write that it did have a different name in English after all. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
What seems ambiguous in the guidelines?
The name has different spellings in English. The city hasn’t been renamed in its recorded history.  —Michael Z. 23:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
So the English spelling matters, but also doesn't matter. — CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Sure, if you like.
What seems ambiguous in the guidelines?  —Michael Z. 01:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
What do you mean "if I like"? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
I mean call it whatever the heck you like. It doesn’t matter if you aren’t interested in discussing this constructively.
I’ve taken the trouble to quote the relevant guidelines, gone through all of the sources cited, and put together an argument. You don’t care. You continue to not WP:LIKE what I’ve given, have settled on your argument without reference to any guidelines, and insist there’s something wrong with the guidelines but refuse to say what. We are clearly at an impasse.
I will proceed with WP:DR.  —Michael Z. 02:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Obviously by looking at your personal page and edit history, you have an ideological/nationalist agenda. I don't (at least I think I don't). My only interest here is in recording history accurately, not re-writing it in order to flatter my pet conceits.
Lord knows I try to be as objective as I can, but maybe I'm not. However, you make it very difficult to reach an agreement about anything. You and I have had other discussions in the past. For whatever reason you are a very querulous person, even when we happen to be in near or total agreement about something. (For example, you were also snapping at the other editor who agreed with you on the talk page at Koryo-saram.) Which is why I did not want to deal with another tiresome back-and-forth with you.
Maybe you don't mean to be this way. Who knows? Whatever the case, this issue seems to be of vital personal importance to you. It truly is not to me. So I'll go ahead and let you have your preferred transliteration. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 03:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
I was going to ask for a WP:3O. I think it would be good to settle this according to some consensus and relation to the guidelines and sources.
I have tried to comment on your argument and not label you personally, but my frustration showed. I reject your characterization of my “agenda.” —Michael Z. 16:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
It's OK. I was unfair to you and spoke out of frustration. So I apologize. I no longer dispute Hlukhiv, so a third opinion isn't necessary for my sake. However, it might be useful in case this issue comes up again with other editors. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I will leave the 3o request up, and we’ll have a better indication of a consensus.  —Michael Z. 17:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
  3O Response: This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Third opinion and I am commenting in response to that request. I have never edited this article before and am commenting as a third-party, though the last few comments do give the impression that the need for a third-party is almost pro forma at this point as the dispute seems more or less resolved. However looking through the discussion I do concer with Michael Z's assessment of the relevant MoS and naming conventions here. Unless the Russian name is the common name for the city that is used in English, it is generally best to use the name that is used in modern English, barring the exceptions alluded to, which do not seem to be met in this case (though I'm going off the talk page and a look through the article for that assessment). However the only thing I would note when looking through the article is that Glukhov is mentioned in Maxim Berezovsky#Italian period but more importantly also in an image of a map; I think with the map some contextualization either in the prose or the caption might help explain the connection between Hlukhiv in the prose and Glukhov in the accompanying map, because without the understanding that those are the same place, the map being there seems almost unrelated. - Aoidh (talk) 02:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Maxim Berezovsky/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 14:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Jaguarnik (talk · contribs) 00:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Experienced reviewer: ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I plan to review this article. I will post the review either within a few hours or tomorrow. Jaguarnik (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Update: I am leaving this article on hold until at least July 16 per Amitchell125's request. As I am a new reviewer, I will also have a more experienced reviewer check the review, to make sure that I have addressed all necessary criteria and issues and given a fair review. Jaguarnik (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

What's the status of this one? Ready for a pass? -- asilvering (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello, the only things that are left is "Some other source issues", but these are mostly quibbles about statements in the source that are left out in the article. Perhaps if @Amitchell125 and @Shushugah are fine with it (Amitchell hasn't been active on Wikipedia for the last few days) the last things can be left as things that can be improved on; there aren't any major issues blocking the article from good article status. Jaguarnik (talk) 01:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Mmm, sounds like a plan, Jaguarnik​. I've had a lethal combination of real life issues (including a dip in my health), but will spur myself to finish the job asap... Amitchell125 (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear that, I hope you are doing better. I mean that I can pass it right now, as the quibbles aren't that necessary to improve upon, as the major issues have all been addressed. Jaguarnik (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Agreed! A strong congratulations on a Good Article to both of you for a rigorous review! Any lingering issues can be addressed by anyone who reads the Talk page. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you very much @Shushugah for the help with reviewing the article and thank you @Amitchell125 for your work on this article. Jaguarnik (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)


### GA review
Last updated: 11:56, 31 July 2025 (UTC) by Jevansen 
See what the criteria are and what they are not
1) Well-written

 1a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct
 1b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation
2) Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check

 2a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline
 2b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)
 2c) it contains no original research
 2d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism
3) Broad in its coverage

 3a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic
 3b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)
4) Neutral:

 4) Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each
5) Stable:

 5) Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute
6) Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

 6a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content
 6b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions
Overall:  


#### Comments:
I did a quick copyedit, I see no major spelling or grammar errors otherwise.


### Recommended edits
Please add a caption to the image in the infobox.
Image now removed. AM
A footnote in the lead stating his name is also spelled in English as Maksym Sozontovych. Quite a few sources call him Maksym rather than Maxim; additionally, Google search gives 339k results for Maksym Berezovsky as opposed to 309k for Maxim Berezovsky. Additionally, as a Ukrainian composer, the biography should probably give the transliteration of his Ukrainian name as well.
Y Done (the transliteration seems unnecessary, please amend the text if you disagree). Amitchell125 (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
No disagreements, I'm fine with the note.
Lead calls him "one of the golden three" and then never references this again. This should have a source, either in the lead, or be expanded on in the body. I am unable to find any reliable reference by musicologists to Berezovsky, Vedel and Bortniansky as a "golden three" (something like how The Mighty Handful is a common name for that group of composers): Kuzma for example calls them "the three great composers of the Golden Age of Ukrainian music, citing Rudnytsky, (https://www.jstor.org/stable/763922); Rudnytsky in his turn calls them the greatest of the second half of the 18th century, but says that it is incorrect to call that period of time "the Golden Age of Ukrainian music". (Українська музика: історично-критичний огляд, pg 55, https://diasporiana.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/books/14276/file.pdf) Another journal article calls them "the most prominent representatives of the golden age of Ukrainian music(second half of the 18th century"(https://elibrary.kubg.edu.ua/id/eprint/45699/1/O_%20Sbitnieva_%20The%20Development%20of%20Ukrainian_kaev.pdf). Maybe something like "Together with Artemy Vedel and Dmitry Bortniansky, he is considered one of the most prominent Ukrainian composers of the 18th century" would work?
"He may have composed three- and four-part motets when a boy." I'm unsure that there's anything necessarily wrong with "when a boy", but "as a boy" sounds more natural, in my opinion.
Y Amended. AM
"No portrait of Berezovsky has survived, but it is thought that after several years in Italy, he would have adopted the look of a European, speaking fluent Italian and with a shaved face, powdered wig, and wearing a camisole." I recommend the removal of this, as it doesn't really fit anywhere in the article, and it's just speculation. Also don't like "It is thought" - MOS:WEASEL applies.. AM
Y Removed. AM
The symphonies by Beresciollo section should emphasize more that the identity of Beresciollo as Berezovsky is likely, but not certain, per the source (the source given says that the connection of Berezovsky to Beresciollo is not certain).
Y Done. AM
"Along with fellow Bohemian graduate Josef Mysliveček" - this sounds as if the two share being Bohemian. It is confusing wording. Consider removing "Bohemian" or otherwise rephrasing as "Along with fellow graduate, (the) Bohemian Josef Mysliveček,"
Y Sorted. AM
"Andrei Tarkovsky's 1983 film Nostalghia is "a commentary on exile as told through Berezovsky's life"." This implies the film is something like a biopic or a documentary on Berezovsky's life, when it's simply inspiration. I would recommend something like the film "is inspired by the life of Berezovsky" or "takes inspiration from the life from Berezovsky"
Y Sorted. AM
"Academicians gathered to test the applicants, who assessed the candidates' examination pieces by secret ballot, using white and black balls to vote that the required standard had been reached. Unusually, both Mysliveček and Berezovsky received only white balls, and so both became academicians." Maybe add that the white balls signified positive votes, so that the reader may understand why it was unusual that they both received only white balls (they both unanimously passed).
Y Done. AM
"There is a monument to Berezovsky in Hlukhiv," - a minor request: while the phrasing is fine, it reads a bit awkwardly to me. consider rephrasing to "A monument to Berezovsky was installed in Hlukhiv." If you want to give more information to the reader, I recommend something like "A monument to Berezovsky, sculpted by Inna Kolomiets, was installed in Hlukhiv in 1995.", just to give more information to the reader. I recommended a source below for the information if you need one. (You may rephrase as you like, it is just an example.) However, this is not necessary.
Y Sentence amended a bit. AM


### Issues to be addressed
#### Claudio Records source
Earwig flags 45,1% similarity to the Claudio Records source. This is too high. Consider removing or otherwise rephrasing : "He was also the first to raise the theme of the suffering of the Creator to the level of the philosophical concept of the battle between good and evil. The strength of expression of this concept elevates Berezovsky’s compositions to the standing of international masterpieces of the cultural musical world such as those of the later works of Mozart and the symphonies of Beethoven." Analyses of his works and musical style could be used - if needed, I can search for some.
Y Text deleted. AM
Additionally, I don't care for this source - Yurchenko was the conductor of the choir that made the recording; I don't see anything that confirms that Yurchenko also wrote the notes (do conductors normally write the CD notes?). Additionally, CD notes aren't peer-reviewed or necessarily held to high standards of accuracy, as far as I am aware. Could this source be replaced by any other sources?
The Ukrainian Wikipedia article gives some idea of Yurchenko's expertise as an authority on the composer, I will check to confirm that he produced the notes. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


#### Inconsistencies
Userbox says he was born in Glukhov, the text of the article refers to Glukhov as Hlukhiv. Additionally, the lead says that he was educated at "Glukhov Singing School", but the section "Education in Hlukhiv and Kyiv" calls it the "Hlukhiv Singing School".  It should be consistent throughout the article.
Y Sorted. AM
Tri Simfoniyi on pg 17 states that there is no documentation of Berezovsky attending the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy (pg 4 in Ukrainian states Києво-Могилянська академія). You have wikilinked this to the Kiev Theological Academy(Київська духовна академія) in the lead, which is a different academy. You have also stated in "Early life" that he was by the accounts of others a scholar at the "Academia Kiioviensis Mohileana" and wikilinked to the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, although in the body and later in the text you link to the Kiev Theological Academy.
"His suicide, taken as fact from the early 19th century, may have happened because of debt problems or his wife's death, as opposed to earlier theories such as his supposed poor treatment by the imperial court." Earlier in the text, it is stated that his wife died a year after him.
Y Sentence amended, leaving out his wife's death. AM
"Bolkhovitinov's unsubstantiated biography, written four decades after Berezovsky's death, was used by later writers as the main source of information about the composer" but in the death section, you write "Bolkhovitinov, in his 1804 biography of Berezovsky, used testimonies by people who knew him..." two contradictions: a) 40 years after Berezovsky's death would be 1817, not 1804 (this seems like an error taken from Shumilina's text, as she says almost 40 years); I've removed the four decades. b) Since the biography is described to be taken from people who personally knew Berezovsky, it makes it sound like the biography is in fact substantiated.
I would use the source that's more recent - in this case, Shumilina. While Pryashnikova is an expert in her field, the notes seem to be from 2003, judging by the recording, and research over the last several years have disproven many legends about Berezovsky. Additionally, CD notes aren't normally peer-reviewed, unlike journal articles.


#### Table
Update: as the table was deleted by the nominator, the next section is irrelevant.
The table is really problematic. I would recommend removal of the entire thing than work on it, especially because the prose is decent and passes GA criteria, but I'll let you make that decision. Here are the issues I've noticed:

The table does not have a consistent style: some works list a transliteration, others do not. Either transliterations should be listed for all works, or no transliterations should be listed.
There are also a significant amount of translation errors. For example, liturgical works 1 choral concerts 8, 9, 10, 23, and 41? all have incorrect translations, and these are not the only translation errors I have found. I have also noticed a significant amount of transliteration errors. With your permission, I would like to work on the translations (and transliterations, if you choose to keep them) in the article.
The entire table has been labelled as Ukrainian-language text, when most (if not all of this) seems to be Church Slavonic as far as I am aware; some of the titles use characters that don't exist in Ukrainian (e.g. Отрыгну сердце - ы doesn't exist in Ukrainian, so I assume you got it from a Russian source). The titles need to be consistent.
Alternatively, you might choose one source, like Ritsarev, and list just the works she mentions - something like a "partial/selected filmography" section for certain film directors.
Multiple listed works have transliterations that differ from their translations and/or titles.
Azeev is used as a source for several of the works, but the source consistently leads to a specific score that doesn't match the actual score.I would prefer to remove the table entirely if the issues are too numerous and/or cannot be addressed. The table is not needed anyway for a good article, and the prose you have written already is decent.

In short, there are far too many issues with the table; I would recommend getting rid of it entirely.

Table now deleted. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


#### Some other source issues
page 16 of Tri Simfoniyi - Karabits states that Berezovsky was likely born no later than 1740-1741 and cites research from Rytsareva and Lebedeva-Emelina; but this isn't mentioned in the article. I would recommend putting this in the text, especially if the sources from Rytsareva and Lebedeva-Emelina can be found.
"He no longer sang as a principal after Catherine II became empress in 1762, perhaps because of his age, or because Russian musicians lost favour at court during her rule." Citing Kuzma. Kuzma writes "Berezovs′ky remained as a court singer but no longer sang principal operatic roles; this may have been...due to a change in policy in favour of foreign musicians." I am unfamiliar with what exactly the change in policy was, but the first wording implies that Catherine grew displeased with Russian musicians and demoted or removed all of then, while the way Kuzma writes it implies only that Catherine had hired more foreign musicians. A rewording is not necessary, but I would recommend it. (An explanation of the policy change would be nice, but not at all necessary for GAN.)
"There he studied with the composer Stanislao Mattei, the assistant of the music historian and composer Giovanni Battista Martini at the Accademia Filarmonica di Bologna." I cannot access Jaffé 2012, but the other source is Shumilina 2015, who says that Berezovsky studied with Battista Martini himself, not Mattei. Other sources I've read about Berezovsky say that Martini in fact gave him high praise, and mention nothing about Mattei.
"One of the passports is thought to have been for Berezovsky." the cited source states "The first surname is barely legible, but [Rytsareva] assumed that to be Berezovsky. However, in the second edition of the book, the author forwent her hypothesis..." Shumilina(2019) says about the same passport "Researchers believe that this record does not concern M. Berezovsky, because mistakes were made in it in written surnames."(Дослідники вважають, що цей запис не стосується М. Березовського, бо в ньому допущено помилки у написані прізвища.) so the passport according to researchers may not have been for Berezovsky? This should be mentioned.
Inconsistent layout of sources: not all of the sources are listed in the "Source" section. For example, Kuzma's article about Berezovsky from Grove Music Online is in "Sections", but Taruskin's article, also from Grove Music Online, is not listed in sources. Same issue with the Claudio Records CD notes but lack of Pryashkina's CD notes.


#### Minor issues
All issues here addressed. Jaguarnik (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

You have listed ТРИ СИМФОНІЇ(Tri Simfoniyi) by Karabits as being written in Ukrainian, but in the linked document, there is a translation of the Ukrainian text into English. You have cited the English translation. Either the page numbers must be changed to the ones in Ukrainian, or the "in Ukrainian" should be removed. Also, the article in question was not written by Karabits, but by Larisa Ivchenko; Karabits is the editor of the three symphonies that are presented after Ivchenko's article.
Y Source amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Why does Shumilina 2018 2019, and 2020 not have page numbers listed for the citations? The journal articles should have page numbers.
N Not done. See Template:Cite journal, which shows that the pages numbers are for the whole article, not the specific page(s). Amitchell125 (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
I understand that, I mean that the specific pages to support statements should be in the citation footnotes. For example, when citing Shumilina's article in the Death section, the footnote shows "Shumilina 2015: p. 83". This should be in the other footnotes as well for these three articles, no? Jaguarnik (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
It's not commonly done, and not required for GA (MOS:NOTES does not refer to it). Amitchell125 (talk) 12:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Fine, I won't insist on it. Jaguarnik (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
There is a DOI on the site for Shulgina 2020, you might consider linking to it (but not necessary): http://catalog.liha-pres.eu/index.php/liha-pres/catalog/view/72/816/1780-1
Y Link added. AM


### Other criteria
The article is stable. Y
The article is neutral and balanced in viewpoints.Y
Berezovsky's life, work and legacy are covered, but not in too much detail.Y
Most of the images are fine. I have questions about the image in the infobox - the source doesn't say anything about the origin of the image or its publication; all that I can find is that Alamy Photos claims that it's in public domain. (https://www.alamy.com/berezovsky-maksim-sozontovich-image218352925.html?utm_source=77643&utm_campaign=Shop%20Royalty%20Free%20at%20Alamy&utm_medium=impact&irgwc=1) All other images date to Berezovsky's time and therefore shouldn't have issues with copyright. Audio links to an external site. Images all good. Y
Y Infobox image removed, I agree with your comment about its origin. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


### Recommendations for improvement of the article
I found some articles and media that I believe would improve the article - however, you are not obliged to use all or even any of them.

Shumilina has an article from 2018 in Russian titled "Myths about Maxim Berezovsky: Reasons for Emergence and Ways to Overcome" that has some useful information; for example, on pg 14, she argues that Berezovsky could not have killed himself, as the laws of the Russian Empire at the time ordered to bury people dead by suicide in unmarked graves, while documents show that arrangements were made to bury Berezovsky. Shumilina also writes that Berezovsky was able to find work after returning to St. Petersburg, as documents show that he was paid 500 rubles a year, (Shumilina, Olga Anatolyevna, title "Мифы о Максиме Березовском: причины появления и пути преодоления", trans-title "Myths about Maxim Berezovsky: Reasons for Emergence and Ways to Overcome" 2018, journal "Вестник музыкальной науки". lang=ru. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/mify-o-maksime-berezovskom-prichiny-poyavleniya-i-puti-preodoleniya, pgs 12-19)
Y Added. AM
A source talking about several myths about the life of Berezovsky (and other Catherine-epoch composers) and what is actually known about Berezovsky. (Lebedeva-Emelina, Antonina (2017). Berezovsky's death, including Bolkhovitinov's version of events and Ritzarev's hypothesis, is discussed on pgs 12-13. (unfortunately, I was unable to find the actual article by Ritzarev). Title: Биографика композиторов екатерининской эпохи: соотношение документов, легенд и мифов. trans-title: Biographic Writings on the Composers of the Era of Catherine the Great: Correlation Between Documents, Legends, And Myths. journal=Искусство музыки: теория и история (The art of music: theory and history), issue 17, https://imti.sias.ru/upload/iblock/132/imti_2017_17_3_78_lebedeva_emelina.pdf, lang=ru)
Y Added. AM
Journal article by Lebedeva-Emilina, Komarov, and Mologin about the publication of Berezovsky's works by Peter Jürgenson. It mentions that Berezovsky's liturgical music was composed in Italy and dates to 1770 or earlier, if that's helpful(pgs 134-135). (https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/izdanie-duhovnoy-muzyki-m-s-berezovskogo-v-kontse-xix-veka-p-i-yurgenson-k-k-albreht-i-p-i-chaykovskiy, journal=Вестник Православного Свято-Тихоновского гуманитарного университета, issue 135, pgs 130-162, date=2019, authors=Lebedeva Emelina, Antonina Viktorovna; Komarov, Aleksandr Viktorovich; Mologin, Mikhail Semyonich, title=Издание духовной музыки М. С. Березовского в конце xix века: П. И. Юргенсон, К. К. Альбрехт и П. И. Чайковский, trans-title=Publication of sacred music of M.S.Berezovsky at the end of the 19th century: P.I.Jürgenson, K.K.Albrecht and P.I.Tchaikovsky) It also mentions works by Berezovsky (pgs 136-137) that I do not see at all in the table, for example the liturgical work Знаменася на нас.
Several streets in Ukrainian cities named in honor of Berezovsky. 2 news articles about a street named in honor of Maxim Berezovsky: one in Kyiv in March 2023, and the other in Kremenchuk in September 2023. You might add this to his legacy section. (https://vechirniy.kyiv.ua/news/80764/, https://zmist.pl.ua/news/na-chest-lytovskogo-knyazya-ta-getmana-somka-u-kremenchuczi-perejmenuvaly-12-vulycz This source from the Oles Honchar Kherson Library also states that there are streets named after him in Chernihiv and Rivne, a children's school named after him in Hlukhiv, and the 1995 installation of the statue in Hlukhiv, with the sculptor being Inna Kolomiets.(https://lib.kherson.ua/avtor-pershoi-ukrainskoi-simfonii.htm)
A news article about the celebration of 275 years of Berezovsky (https://vechirniy.kyiv.ua/news/47922/)
Y Link added. AM
a 2022 article by Shumilina, analyzing the operas he sang in (including lead tenor role of Seleuco by Araja) and proposing his age based on that + again hypothesizing that Berezovsky was not Beresciollo based on the fact that the style of Beresciollo's symphonies would have been unknown to Berezovsky. Shumilina, Olha (2022). "Опера «Селевк» у творчому житті Максима Березовськоґо" [The opera "Seleuco" in the creative life of Maksym Berezovsky]. Часопис Національної музичної академії України імені П.І.Чайковського (in Ukrainian) (3-4(56-57)): 97–112. doi:10.31318/2414-052X.3-4(56-57).2022.278208. ISSN 2414-052X.
Y Source added to Further Reading list. AM
а November 2021 conference paper by Shumilina, "Who is Signor Beresciollo?" (ХТО ТАКИЙ СИНЬЙОР BERESCIOLLO?) In the article, Shumilina argues that Beresciollo was not in fact Berezovsky, seeing as the pieces from Beresciollo were dated to 1760, and Berezovsky would have been a 15-year-old opera singer who was not composing music. (pgs 254-258 Shumilina, Olha (November 2021). Хто такий Синьор Beresciollo? (PDF). FIFTH INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH-TO-PRACTICE CONFERENCE. Kyiv. pp. 254–258.)
Y Source added to Further Reading list. AM
Consider using this image from Wikimedia Commons: Пам'ятник композиторам М. С. Березовському і Д. С. Бортнянському, Глухів 01.jpg (an image of the Berezovsky monuments in Hlukhiv), in legacy for better illustration of the article. As far as I am aware, the author has released it into public domain (it was part of a Wikimedia competition), and Ukraine's freedom of panorama laws allow for use of photos of monuments as I know, so there should be no issue with using it. Never mind.
As explained here, the image is not allowed because of freedom of panorama laws in Ukraine, and actually should be deleted from WikiCommons (which is very strict about such things). Amitchell125 (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Alright, no worries, thank you for the explanation. Jaguarnik (talk) 22:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


### Experienced reviewer
Jaguarnik hello, this review is exceptionally thorough and I am very impressed. I was even more impressed when I realised this is one of your first reviews. Well done! You identified problematic prose/content, including copyright violations. The author themselves identified issues with image licensing and remaining images comply with permissible licensing (CC BY-SA or public domain). 
I have some additional feedback regarding sourcing for both the reviewer and the nominator. 

The author Shumilina is referred to as both Olga and Olha in the sourcing, one of these should be used for internal consistency.
There is a duplicate source, which has two different authors (one is really an editor) and should be merged, that is Maxim Berezovsky: Three Symphonies
GA reviews do not specify any kind of citation consistency, although that's nice. Additionally, {{Cite journal}} pages parameter does not specify that it must specify all the pages of entire chapter/passage. It depends how article is structured. In case of WP:CITESHORT I would agree with you, but if it's a stand-alone reference, you can just specify the single page or shorter range of pages used to verify a specific claim in the text. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Below is a copy-and-paste of a comment I made at this article's DYK nomination:

What I will mention is that the bit of copy-editing I did revealed some issues that ought to be resolved, especially in a GA article. A few parts raise concerns about WP:SYNTH, for example. An early instance occurs at the the conclusion of the first paragraph in the "Biography" section. Putting aside for the moment that the phrase "victim of the regime" is loaded terminology that should be avoided per MOS:LABEL, WP:IMPARTIAL, and WP:EPSTYLE, I discovered upon reading the cited source (which doesn't include the page number; it's 25) that it doesn't confirm the statement in the article. (Full disclosure: I'm proficient in Russian, but know zero Ukrainian. Even so, the languages are similar enough that I can generally grasp the meaning of Ukrainian; the difference to my eyes and ears being comparable to that between Spanish and Portuguese.) According to Shumilina, surviving evidence "disproves the idea that Berezovsky's lack of work and financial difficulties caused his suicide". She reaffirms this in the final paragraph of page 27: "An untimely death (not the result of suicide!) interrupted his creative work" ("Передчасна смерть (не внаслідок самогубства!) перервала його творчість").
I'm not going to get involved with this article in-depth. My hope is that the editors who have worked hard on this article consider my remarks in the friendly and constructive spirit they were intended. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The way I interpreted that statement was that the theory is popular, but unlikely according to academic research. The circumstances and debate around his death is elaborated on in the section about his final years and death. I changed the "victim of the regime" bit. I'll look to see if there are any other inconsistencies that should be addressed.  Jaguarnik (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

A great deal of the most important material in this article is self-identified as speculation. Why should any of that material be kept at all? TooManyFingers (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

This fact was chosen as a Did You Know hook, and yet the source cited describes it only as 'a widespread legend'. The author feels, for some reason, that it is 'similar to a truth' (i.e. plausible?), but also acknowledges that the only certain fact is that 'until the last moment', there wasn't money for the composer to be buried in St Petersburg. 
Also, the text itself seems like a very questionable source. It is an article in some kind of newspaper. The tone is highly emotional, unabashedly subjective, hyperbolical and hagiographic (as shown even by the title calling him a 'Ukrainian Mozart'), and the content appears speculative. The author argues that since Berezovsky wrote devout Christian music, he couldn't possibly have committed suicide; then he compares his death to those of Christ and Socrates, no less. (I apologise for an error in the edit summary, though - the author is not anonymous, I just didn't see his name at first.) 62.73.72.3 (talk) 07:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Added a source from a Ukrainian music journal mentioning it; there might be a source that has more detail but I don't have the time to search.Jaguarnik (talk) 07:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
The source from Muzyka itself refers to the burning as one of many "myths and legends" around Berezovsky's life. The interview subject, Kirill Karabits, only goes so far as to say that this event is a "guess", but does not acknowledge it as fact. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Right, so I didn't change the part where it's referred to as "legend". I wasn't involved in the DYK nomination so I didn't nominate that hook, but I admit that I should have looked more carefully at that source as the GA reviewer. That's my mistake. Jaguarnik (talk) 19:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that, IP editor. I think this should be mentioned in today's DYK's talk page. Definitely at least a WP:VOICE issue with the ALT's phrasing. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

During the discussion over this article's DYK nomination, I raised a number of concerns about the state of this article, but did not believe at the time that its GA status needed reassessment. The last few hours, however, have drawn a couple of comments from uninvolved editors over the quality of this article's sources, as well as the WP:SYNTH issues I had previously brought up. Because of them, I've read through some of the cited sources in closer detail and can confirm their observations. It is my belief that despite the good-faith efforts of those heavily involved with this article that a reassessment of its GA status is needed. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know the correct way to handle a situation like this. Frankly if this article was my personal project I might give up and delete the entire thing, but if I kept it I would make extremely drastic cuts, taking away all hints of questionable material or questionable sources, and all hints of WP:SYNTH. TooManyFingers (talk) 07:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's going on in this article these past few days, but I don't think anything too drastic is needed. Can we get more specifics on which sections and which sources are so questionable? Aza24 (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Large amounts of material in the Biography section are already admitted up front to be mere speculation. I don't believe there's any reason to keep admitted speculation in anyone's biography. An empty article is better than a fake article. TooManyFingers (talk) 04:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
That's not specific. If scholars are included "speculated information" then we include it too, that's how Wikipedia works; it's not our job to "correct" the record. Aza24 (talk) 04:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)