Talk:Prayer for Ukraine

The result was: promotedbySL93 (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

• ... that the chamber choir Oreya (pictured) chose the spiritual anthem Prayer for Ukraine, published in 1885, as the first track and title of their 2000 album? Source: several
  • Reviewed: Peter Walker (dancer)
  • Comment: This article expansion is the labour of love of many authors. I try one hook, biased of course as I took the picture which appeared already on DYK in 2016. I'd like to see Ukrainian people pictured, rather than a music sheet. It also shows them European but in folk appearance. - As for expansion: we started at 660 characters, and at present (but I'm sure it will grow) are at 4196, but DYKcheck seems to look at an in-between version which had a text version presented as prose. The article is now expanded enough, and GA also. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Expanded by Gerda Arendt (talk), Микола Василечко (talk), and DanCherek (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 17:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC).Reply

• alt 1: ... that Saturday Night Live on 26 February 2022 replaced its cold open with a Ukrainian chorus singing the hymn Prayer for Ukraine?Cbl62 (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Thank you, and sure more sensational. "hymn" is often understood as a church song, which would be right for this one but not enough, - perhaps no description? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Or crib “spiritual anthem” from the first proposal. —Michael Z. 15:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Yes source. First track in album - TWENTY YEARS OF CREATION (2009) See link. --Микола Василечко

  Also album and first track - PRAYER FOR UKRAINE (2000) --Микола Василечко

  There's a related discussion on DYKTALK:

  ALT1a: ... that the 1885 spiritual anthem Prayer for Ukraine was performed by a choir from New York on Saturday Night Live? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

    An absolutely beautiful piece. Article underwent a 6.4x expansion in the two days before nomination (and was promoted to Good Article status four days after nomination), and is long enough, sourced, neutral, and plagiarism-free. I'd recommend hedging The anthem is sung at the end of meetings of by throwing a "some" in there (unless it's not needed? The sourcing seems like it points to individual examples of these). ALT1a is verified to Variety, and it is cited inline and interesting. QPQ checks out. In short, this meets all of the DYK criteria :) unfortunately, I'm still placing this on hold pending the resolution of SL93's RfC. If there is consensus to run this hook, we'll be good to go with ALT1a! your virtual hugs have been received and appreciated :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

  I added the "some" as suggested. DanCherek (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

    This is now allowed to proceed after the recent RFC close. SL93 (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

This review is transcluded from Talk:Prayer for Ukraine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Serial Number 54129 (talk · contribs) 08:24, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Nearly there.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:  

   Well done.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:  

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:  

   Refs 23 and 25 need formatting to make the info verifiable (e.g. {{Cite AV media}}).

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:  

   Qualifier: I neither read nor speak Ukrainian, but the links do not bring up any red flags, and the few English sources are reputable.

   C. It contains no original research:  

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:  

   Earwig shows only the lyrics, not unsurprisingly, are found elsewhere; I randomly googled a number of sentences from the article and they also came up nowhere except this article. The audio sample complies with WP:FUR and WP:NFC/Audio.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:  

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):  

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:  

   Nively so, particularly in these times.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:  

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:  

   Self-published under CC0 1.0, musical score from 1885

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:  

   SN, thank you for fast but thorough reading! I don't quite know what you want for the recordings refs which I have frequently seen for classical music, and we even have this template for them. They open detailed entries on WorldCat. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

   I see that Grimes2 is in the process of reformatting these refs, - better? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

   Excellent, say thank you to Grimes2  :) SN54129 15:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

   there's (almost) no day without thanks to Grimes2 - thank you as well! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

The file shown at the top of the article has some mistakes (wrong slurs, wrong rhythm in bar 14). I have uploaded my own revised version on Commons. As a quite new user, I do not want to change the picture on my own. Thaddäus Rudolf (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

In the Lyrics section there is an English "Literary translation by Dmytro Shostak." Is there more information available somewhere as to who he is and when he did the translation? Is there a reference we can add? I've done a brief Google search but didn't find anything logical. papageno (talk) 02:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

papageno, Dmytro Shostak in Ukrainian Wiki.

first post translation on Facebook

Dmytro Shostak in Facebook. --Микола Василечко (talk) 04:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks, Микола Василечко. --papageno (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply