Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Music for a Time of War/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Music for a Time of War edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have been working on this article for about one month. I know I have just a bit more work to put into it (remaining sources to incorporate into the article are posted on the talk page). However, I am at a point where I could really use a second pair of eyes, or more! My goal for this article is FA status. A copy edit would be great. Also just thoughts on general flow of the article, amount of detail, etc. Any feedback would be great before I finish my work on the article prior to GAN. Thank you. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Doing... (There may be a little wait, but I will get to it). Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Take your time. I appreciate the feedback. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some opening comments to get the review started:

Lead
  • "debut" closely followed by "debuted", twice. For smooth prose I recommend finding an alternative verb.
    • Replaced one occurrence of "debut" with "was first performed", though now I feel the word "perform" is used a bit too much. I cannot think of an alternative at the moment. --Another Believer (Talk) 06:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather than "in May", I suggest you give the exact date of the first performance. To what does "both performances" refer?
    • Done. Added complete date of first performance. Then included a sentence stating the program was repeated the following day. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, "the following weekend" is imprecise and should be dated. This sentence is ambiguous; does "repeating the program at the inaugural Spring for Music Festival" refer to the Carnegie Hall performance itself, or to a further performance?
    • Done. Added complete date of Carnegie Hall performance. Now reads: "On May 12, 2011, the Symphony debuted at Carnegie Hall, repeating the program performed in Portland at the inaugural Spring for Music Festival." --Another Believer (Talk) 20:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a general point, try to avoid giving too much detail in the lead For example, the detail "recorded in Super Audio CD format" is unnecessary at this stage; likewise it is unnecessary to list the recording's various awards here. The lead should provide a broad summary of the whole of the article, which I don't think it does at present.
  • "debuting" again
Program
  • My first thought is that the four images would look much tidier if they were incorporated into a square, thus. I don't know how to do this easily, but I know an editor who does, and if you wish I'll raise the matter with him. The lead presently lacks an image; why not use this, there.
    • If you are able to submit a request, that would be much appreciated. Otherwise, I will try to find a template that will generate the square, which I concur would look better in the article. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again on a point of layout, it looks very untidy having a quotebox and a blockquote next to each other, in a part of the text that is already affected by the image. I'd reconsider the positioning of the quotebox, whatever you decide to do with the four-part image.
    • I agree, but I was not sure how else to display two quotes both generally speaking about the program (which I see as the first paragraph of the Program section, before it breaks into separate paragraphs for each composition). Will keep considering options. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Longwinded wording: "The Oregon Symphony first performed the work in January 1974 with Lawrence Leighton Smith conducting; until Music for a Time of War the Symphony had most recently performed the composition in January 2007 with Kalmar conducting." I'd abbreviate: "The Oregon Symphony had first performed the work in January 1974, under Lawrence Leighton Smith, and had played it under Kalmar in January 2007".
  • Insert "which is" before "approximately"
  • "Kalmar's program includes a solo vocal performance by baritone Sanford Sylvan..." Misleading - sounds as though the baritone part is not normally included. Suggest: "In Kalmar's program the baritone soloist is Sanford Sylvan..." etc
  • "The program follows with..." → "The program continues with..."
  • "these performances marked the ensemble's most recent prior to Music for a Time of War. First, what does "these performances" refer to? Secondly, an orchestra is not the same as an "ensemble". Finally I'm not sure that this information is significant enough for inclusion. If they hadn't played it for 40 years, well, perhaps. But 4 years?
    • The Feb. 26–28, 2005 performances, as indicated by the source. I changed "in February 2005" to "on February 26–28, 2005" to clarify multiple performances. Replaced "ensemble" with "orchestra". "Ensemble" is used several times throughout the article. Should any of these be changed as well? To me, an orchestra is a type of ensemble, perhaps I misunderstand the term. --Another Believer (Talk) 06:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the relationship of VW's fourth symphony to war? You give this information in respect of the first three works. My understanding is that VW did not provide a program for the work; certainly my own recording of the work (Barbirolli 1937) gives no indication in the accompanying notes of a "war" theme, although the music is violent and passionate at times.
    • Doing. See comment below. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Not much program content to include, but I noted Williams' own thoughts on the symphony and how others interpreted the work. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue, as time permits. Brianboulton (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. I look forward to additional comments when you have the time. Feel free to strike resolved concerns, or cap them if you prefer. I know it helps me to separate resolved and unresolved issues. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

General
  • "prior to" crops up five times: not sure what the phrase has that "before" hasn't
    • Replaced two occurrences with "before", attempting to alternative between the two options. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several innocuous statements are given three separate citations: this isn't easy on the reader's eye and I'd be inclined to prune them or bundle them where practicable. See WP:CITEBUNDLE and WP:CITEKILL
Done. I believe there is only one instance in which a sentence is followed by three references. In this case, one sources verifies a live broadcast and two verify the partnership between the radio station and the Symphony. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
Program
  • RVW's 4th Symphony: I heartily agree with Brianboulton's comment, above; dissonant though the work is, it has no programme. I note Kalmar's disclaimer in the first para of the section, but VW said of the Fourth "I wrote it not as a definite picture of anything external – e.g. the state of Europe – but simply because it occurred to me like that".
    • Doing. See comment below. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Not much program content to include, but I noted Williams' own thoughts on the symphony and how others interpreted the work. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Performances and broadcasts
  • Not clear why you need another blue link to Carnegie Hall here; several more examples of WP:OVERLINK such as multiple links for Britten et al could do with trimming.
    • Removed link to Carnegie Hall since link appears in the section above. Other examples of overlinking? According to OVERLINK, articles' "first occurrence[s] after the lead" should be linked. As far as I can tell, throughout the article there are only duplicate links because words are linked the first time they appear in the lead as well as the first time they appear in the article. If there is a specific link you believe should be removed, please let me know. Thank you for catching the Carnegie Hall link, though. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Britten and Vaughan Williams have at least five blue links each. Tim riley (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • It appears all composers are linked: (1) in the lead, (2) in the lead infobox, (3) the first time they appear in the article itself, (4) in the image featuring all four composers, (5) in the Track listing section, and (6) in the Personnel section. For which appearances should links be removed? According to OVERLINK: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." --Another Believer (Talk) 18:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also, according to WikiProject Albums, "names [in the Personnel section] should always be linked if an article exists". Seems appropriate to at least remove links in the Track listing section? --Another Believer (Talk) 18:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I shall shut up forthwith! Fair points all. Tim riley (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hah! Well, I will leave the links for now, but I do agree with you that there might be some redundancy here. Balance between overlinking and article style guidelines... Perhaps others will chime in on the issue as I continue with GAN and FAC. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Second invitation to Spring for Music and cancellation
  • "News also emerged in February 2011" – this reads a bit oddly, as though the news was leaked rather than announced.
    • Done. Replaced with "It was also reported in February..." -- please let me know if you have a better suggestion. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it would not return to Carnegie in 2013" – the omission of "Hall" looks strange to an English eye, but if it's idiomatic American usage ignore me.
    • Done. The venue is sometimes referred to simply as "Carnegie", but I added Hall just to be more accurate. Thanks. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image of Ives et al: I suspect I'm the user to whom Brianboulton refers above. I'd be happy to run up a quartered image. Do you mind if I crop Ives and Britten so that all faces are roughly the same size? I'll look in again to this page, or you can leave a note on my talk page. Best wishes. – Tim riley (talk) 13:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, please do whatever you think would look best. Thank you so much for offering to create the image. I was still searching for a way to just plug the four images into a window template, but your offer is one I cannot refuse. Thanks again! Please let me know if there are any additional concerns needing to be addressed. In the meantime, I will continue working on improvements based on feedback supplied by you and Brianboulton. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image now uploaded at File:Ives-adams-rvw-britten.jpg to be used or not as you think best. Tim riley (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! --Another Believer (Talk) 18:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. But I must tell you that though I am no expert (haven't a clue, in truth) on WP's draconian copyright rules, I have my doubts if the Ives image, or even the Britten, will survive scrutiny by the image police. I have looked for unquestionably public domain replacements but without success. Brian knows more about this topic than I do, and he may like to comment in due course. Tim riley (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, copyright rules. I can never keep up. *rolls eyes* Well, if the image is removed, I will just replace it with separate images for individual composers, or something. Thanks for the heads up. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am glad you both mentioned RVW's Symphony. Actually, this is one section I have not yet finished working on. I will be sure to expand the paragraph with information from the program as well as other sources. (There is a list of sources still needing to be incorporated into the article on the talk page.) I still need to expand the Reception section with a couple other major reviews. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update: I have since expanded the RVW paragraph. As mentioned above (twice), there is not much program content to include, but I noted Williams' own thoughts on the symphony and how others interpreted the work. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images: I see that Tim has alluded to my superior expertise on matters of copyright. Well, not that superior, but experience and a few hard lessons have given me some awareness of the pitfalls. I've looked at the four images in the composite:

  • Ives: unfortunately, the link to the source is inoperative, so we can't confirm the source of the image or the claimed original publication date of 1913.
  • Britten: this is asserted to be free of copyright on the "not renewed" basis, that is, the source book was published without a copyright notice. I find that quite hard to believe. The book, originally published in the Netherlands in 1960, was published in the UK in 1961 by Thomas Nelson, a leading British publisher; would they really have forgotten to register copyright? I've not seen the book; Tim has wonderful access to the British Library, and he may be able to peruse a copy.
    • [Note for Brian on post-Christmas resumption] Very happy to, but you must tell me in short, clear words what I am to look for. Tim Riley (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adams: I used this image on a project (Nixon in China) a year or so ago, and it went through FAC all right, on its present licence.
  • Vaughn Williams: no problem.

I don't suggest you remove the Ives and Britten images without further enquiry, but if the article is to be presented at FAC we will need to clear on these matters. Brianboulton (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If the images are not suitable, I can simply remove the newly-uploaded collage image and include "approved" images in the article. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox: Why has the article got two infoboxes? This is rather confusing, particularly as the first one lists the solo vocalist as a "guest", whatever that means. One such box is more than enough. Brianboulton (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One for the concert program and one for the album. Both have specific infoboxes. They do contain several different parameters. Ideally, there would be a "subtemplate" for the concert infobox to provide details about the recording. Actually, I am not certain I have finished expanding the "Recording" section, so I am going to leave both infoboxes for now and I understand the concern may be re-visited during GAN/FAC. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Music_for_a_Time_of_War/archive1&oldid=1038038531"