Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Piano music of Gabriel Fauré/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ucucha 03:11, 12 December 2011 [1].

Piano music of Gabriel Fauré edit

Featured article candidates/Piano music of Gabriel Fauré/archive1

Nominator(s): Tim riley (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I put this article together because I couldn't find much of the information it contains elsewhere on the web or, without prolonged digging, in print. I have duly dug, and this is the result. Gabriel Fauré's piano works are not so very numerous, and I think a single article covering them all is probably better than a series of short articles on the various pieces. The article has been peer reviewed, and revised in accordance with suggestions there and on talk pages. I believe (and certainly hope) it now covers the works in enough detail for FA, and I have tried to keep technical musical terms to the unavoidable minimum. Tim riley (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I feel this well written article provides an attractive and genuinely useful resource to which music lovers can refer when listening, playing or studying Fauré's piano music. I agree it's handy to have well sourced background information on all these miniatures available in one place—especially when such material isn't always readily available elsewhere.--MistyMorn (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I did some copy editing on this article and made some suggestions and comments to Tim riley, to which he was very responsive. Tim's work here, as is typical of him, is extraordinary: Thorough research, careful referencing, delightful illustrations and images, and engaging prose. I doubt there is a better article of its kind on WP. As MistyMorn said, I think this article will be useful to students and classical music fans. It is much more useful to have information collected this way than to have a series of very short articles on each of these piano pieces. This is certainly the kind of work to which Wikipedia should aspire. Thanks, Tim! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh! Most grateful for the very kind comments above. Tim riley (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image check: All images appear correctly licensed and captioned. ~~The term "secondo" in the last caption may need explanation. There seems to be no suitable wiki target.~~ As the images are PD they should be transferred to Wiki Commons. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source check:
- ~~Ref #32 links to an audio source. This should be made clear and the time where the source supports the statement should be made clear as this is quite a lengthy piece.~~
  - Good point: the sound source is indeed lengthy, and I have replaced it with a print citation as being more reader-friendly. Tim riley (talk) 11:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All other on-line sources check out. No dabs, no dead-links, assume good faith for off-line sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the checks. Glad they were satisfactory. Tim riley (talk) 11:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC) And thanks for your support, below. Tim riley (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~How about the comment on the photo caption above? Jezhotwells (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

I could rephrase it as "playing the accompaniment for..." though that's not quite as precise. Alternatively, just "duetting with", but that does miss the (I think) charming point that the composer was taking the subordinate piano part and letting the little girl play the star part. Thoughts welcome on this. Tim riley (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about [[wiktionary:secondo|secondo]] which produces secondo linking to the Wiktionary definition. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good! You're way ahead of me. This will do splendidly, and I'm most grateful. Tim riley (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: An excellent article, prose reads very well, thoroughly sourced. A good example of the best of Wikipedia. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: As another of the peer reviewers I can confidently vouch for the quality of this article. I'll just mention a couple of tiny issues. First, the images of Fauré at various points in his life are all dated, until the Elgarish one in a bowler hat. According to the image description that is from 1918 - perhaps add this to the caption? Then, the final image shows Fauré playing the piano "for a young friend". It is possible, in these less than innocent times, that the phrase "a young friend" may be misinterpreted. The girl is named in the image description as Melle Lombard, and it may be politic to say "for Melle Lombard, a family friend" or some such. Only a suggestion, though. Well done. Brianboulton (talk) 12:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support and comments. I have acted on the latter precisely as you suggest. Tim riley (talk) 13:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: An inspirational piece. My only criticism is that it's far better than anything I can write -- Cassianto (talk) 13:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the support and your charming comment. Tim riley (talk) 14:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not bad, but I think it is rather a list than an article. As the article concerns his work, it should be probably renamed to "List of works by Gabriel Fauré" or anything similar.--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 18:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I see your point, and I was originally in some doubt about whether to follow the list rather than the article route, but I think the expository detail for the various works takes the page into the "article" rather than the "list" category. Tim riley (talk) 18:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tim's comment; the question of list versus article arose at peer review and it was agreed that the article route was the one to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tim and Brian. There is much analytical detail here, as well as discussion of the relationships among these pieces and the historical and biographical context. Note that there is a separate List of compositions by Gabriel Fauré, which has a very different focus from this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (just a quick one): I read through the article; this is really good work. The tone of the writing startled me for a minute; I'm used to every word in an article having a large sign over it shouting "NPOV!!!", so this was a very refreshing read. One thing to correct, though: the ISBNs should be consistently formatted (hyphenated or not). Clay^Clay _Clay 05:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Hyphens now attended to. Tim riley (talk) 08:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Quite a good compilation. Because I am not much good on musical terminology, I will say I did not try to read it in as much detail as usually I do, although I did read it through twice looking for anything egregious. My comments are all from the front end of the article.
- Background

I'm a bit dubious of the title of the section, given the broad nature of the contents.

How difficult headings can sometimes be! I'll ponder this one and see if I can come up with a better. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now done. Tim riley (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit concerned about your drawing the "charm" comparison from two different sources, with one a quote. Since human charm is, I assume rather different than charm in music, is there some risk of SYNTH?

Good point. I've gone back to the sources to check that it is reasonable to speak of Fauré's personal charm and the charm of his early works in the same sentence. Nectoux, pp. 32–33 reassures me. (Nectoux, p. 473, also comments on the charm of Fauré's piano playing, but perhaps that's a charm too far for this article.) Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"It is not always possible" This paragraph seems rather out of place. Can't it be footnoted?

I'll experiment. I agree that this para rather pops up out of nowhere. I'll see how it looks as a footnote. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Footnoted looks good, I think. Shall leave it so unless anyone objects. Tim riley (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nocturnes

"Chopin's model, in contrasting serene" Strike "in"

OK Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Fauré did not intend the eighth nocturne to appear under that title". Perhaps "designation" rather than "title"?

Better. Done. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, obviously a labour of love.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks indeed for the support and for these very useful comments. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I generally admire authors who can put up an interesting article out of something that could simply be compiled as a list. Deserves FA status by all means. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 12:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for this support. I hope the article will indeed be found useful as more than just a list. Tim riley (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I echo the accolades above. Sorry not to have any constructive criticism to offer, but I did find one typo. Graham Colm (talk) 10:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and I'm grateful for the amendment and the support. Tim riley (talk) 11:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I am really rather an amateur concerning this kind of music but I found this article thoroughly well-written, very informative and also very accessible for people, like me, who are not well-acquainted with the subject. Judging from the responses above, it also meets the standards for enthusiasts and keen listeners of Fauré's music. Pictures are well-chosen, accompanied by concise, unintrusive captions and given appropriate alternate text, further improving the article's accessibility. The article is very well organised, which as MistyMorn says above makes this an overwhelmingly useful companion for somebody listening to, playing or studying Fauré's music. Although the article is quite long, it does not seem to be, always appearing refreshing and interesting. It is thoroughly sourced, properly annotated and well-presented throughout. I enjoyed reading this immensely and am therefore posting a firm "support". I hope each of you will join me in congratulating Tim Riley on this fine achievement. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 16:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh! Thank you so much! Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.