# Talk:Violin Concerto (Mendelssohn)

Is this a duplicate article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concerto_for_Violin_and_Strings_(Mendelssohn)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whyameye (talk • contribs) 15:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC) 

No.  This is *the* violin concerto, the famous one in E minor.  The other article is for a D minor work that he wrote as a child.  I can understand the confusion. The D minor work was obscure enough that it never caused the two of them to be "numbered", but its becoming more commonly recorded and performed that it ended up being "article-worthy".  DavidRF (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Violin Concerto (Mendelssohn)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
This article is being reviewed as part of the WikiProject Good Articles. We're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. This article was awarded GA-status back in 2007, so I will be assessing the article to ensure that it is still compliant.Pyrotec (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


### Summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
Well referenced
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
As most of the sources are books, page numbers should be quoted.
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: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

I'm marking this articel as GA-status: keep. 09:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

In a "standard classical orchestra" from a few decades earlier the French horn was not yet invented and the horns would have been natural horns. So I propose to change "standard classical orchestra" to "standard orchestra of its period." Marlindale (talk) 01:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The Lead was recently revised to say this, but the body of the article seems not to support it. Marlindale (talk) 04:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
The Lead still mentions David's advice and no longer says it was mostly ignored. Marlindale (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

There was a sentence in the article saying 

This led to Mendelssohn's concerto being regarded as one of the most plagiarised of all time.
This cannot be right.  Possibly "imitated" is correct.  What is the correct source?  The Web page cited is not the right one; it has many links but the right one is not clear.  I have commented this sentence out, pending clarification.  Zaslav (talk) 07:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

That's an edit summary for a recent reversion in the article. Marlindale (talk) 23:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, but the long-standing phrase "the violin concertos of Tchaikovsky […] and Sibelius" was correct because the phrase "the violin concerto of Tchaikovsky […] and Sibelius" seems to point to concerto by Tchaikovsky and Sibelius, and there's no such thing. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I agree now. Marlindale (talk) 03:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)