# Talk:Connotations (Copland)

I've perused the article as requested, and corrected a few typos. A few remaining queries about words:

shrifing – not a word I know, but if it is a typo I can't think what it ought to be
frentic – either frantic or frenetic, I assume, but not knowing which of the two it should be I have left it alone
absorbtion – as it is in a quote I didn't like to amend it; perhaps Copland spelled it thus.
"The Fall Hamlet" – seems curiously bilingual, with an English definite article and a German noun.
It's a fine article, and I found it very instructive as well as enjoyable. Tim riley (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Connotations (Copland)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 14:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


### Preliminary comment
This article is plainly of GA standard, and I imagine (and hope) we shall be seeing it at FAC in due course. A few comments:

If the article does go on to FAC, I suspect there may be some reservations there about the length of the article (6,195 words – there are ten FAs on composers' entire lives and works with fewer words than this), but so far as the GA criteria go I see no problem. The relevant GA requirement is "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail", which is the case here, in my view.
The article has been reduced from roughly 55K characters to just under 43K. Some material in the Analysis section that dealt with Copland and serialism was transferred to Aaron Copland, where it might fit more appropriately. Jonyungk (talk) 22:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
One thing that seems to me to be lacking (unless have I missed it in my perusal of the 6,195 words, in which case my apologies) is an indication of the playing time of the piece.
Added. Jonyungk (talk) 22:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
You mention Bernstein's two recordings of the piece; are there any others we should hear about?
There is only one other recording currently available. It and one led by Copland which is no longer available is now mentioned. Jonyungk (talk) 22:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
We are asked, on what authority I know not, to use the 13-digit versions of ISBNs, and here we have a mixture of 10-digit and 13-digit versions. This doesn't seem to me anything approaching a requirement so far as the GA criteria are concerned, but if you are minded to follow it up, a very helpful gadget can be found here.
Corrected. Jonyungk (talk) 22:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Bibliography: "SOUNDPIECES" should be given as "Soundpieces": see MOS:ALLCAPS
Corrected. Jonyungk (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
The second of the three links in the External links section seems to be dead.
Fixed. Jonyungk (talk) 22:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and if I suggest that a link to Desmond Shawe-Taylor might be a good idea, it is absolutely nothing to do with the fact that his article is one of my own efforts.
Good idea and thanks for the note on this. Link added. Jonyungk (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
If you will consider these minor points I'll then press ahead with promoting the article to GA. – Tim riley talk  14:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I have a question regarding your comment on length. Despite its relative neglect, Connotations is a major piece of Copland's, both as a radical stylistic departure from his populist works and in light of the occasion for which it was written. While I'm willing to go through the piece and cut it down where I can, I'm also concerned about leaving in enough information to give context and perspective. Suggestions or general ideas in this regard would be welcome.
Glad you're looking through this, Tim. Appreciate it greatly. Jonyungk (talk) 00:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
As I say, the length isn't a problem (or "issue" as the current fashion has it) for GAN. For my own part I was surprised to see the word count as the article didn't seem particularly long when I was reading through it. Nonetheless, I'm pretty sure you'll get comments at FAC, but if you respond on the lines above, i.e. "Well what would you cut?" it may well be enough to face down any critics. Tim riley talk  06:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
All good points. Still going through to see what makes or illustrates the article's points effectively and what might seem in retrospect extraneous. Don't know much will go but I might have a better chance of getting through FAC if it looks like I made some effort to get things under tighter rein.
Also concerned whether there are enough images to pass muster at FAC. Had one of Copland and Bernstein together during rehearsals for Conotations but was deleted twice, the second time after I showed that I had permission from the archives at the New York Philharmonic to use the photo here. That was one reason I took a Wiki break. Jonyungk (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I ought to be sternly steering you towards addressing my few minor points above and getting the GAN process finished rather than joining you in looking ahead to FAC, but as to images, you can't use what you haven't got, and at FAC you can defy any carping reviewer to come up with suitable images as you haven't been able to find ones that satisfy WP's draconian rules. But let us get the GAN completed first. Tim riley talk  15:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Those points are being addressed as I go through the article on the whole. Conntations' performance length and recordings other than Bernstein's have already been handled. Thanks for the reminder, though. Jonyungk (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I also suspect that some of the Copland and Serialism section could be transferred to the Copland bio article. There's a hole in the years Copland wrote serially where it might fit handily and shorten things here, as well. Jonyungk (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
All looking fine. No reason to delay further, so:


### Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
Well referenced.
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
Well referenced.
C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
Well illustrated.
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Well illustrated.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

On to FAC. Ping me, please, when you get there. Tim riley talk  14:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks again for going through this article. Jonyungk (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The article refers to a correspondence between Copland and "composer" Cesar Chavez, with a link to the article on the latter.  However, on the surface this seems unlikely.  More likely he wrote to Carlos Chavez, who was actually a composer with whom Copland was acquainted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.54.49 (talk) 12:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC) 

I was reading through the article and thought, wow, this is a good article.  And indeed it's marked as such at the top.  :-)   Just listening to the John Wilson BBC Philharmonic recording on Chandos and for the first time really enjoying this fascinating piece.  -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)