Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Henry J. Wood/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 SandyGeorgia 00:44, 4 January 2011 [1].

---

Henry J. Wood

Henry J. Wood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Henry J. Wood/archive1

Nominator(s): Tim riley (talk) 13:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Sir Henry J. Wood (he always used the middle initial) was a major figure in British musical life in the first half of the last century, and his influence continues in London's annual series of The Proms which he conducted for nearly fifty years. He introduced modern classical music to Britain on a scale unparalleled before or since. This article has received a thorough peer review – my warmest thanks to all the contributors – and I believe it now meets all the FA criteria. Tim riley (talk) 13:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments: The sourcing and citations are exemplary. I could only find one nitpick: Ref 119 requires "pp." not "p." - a grave error. Spotchecks for verification were of necessity limited, but I did what I was able and found no problems. More general review comment follows. Brianboulton (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Support: I gave this a lengthy peer review and raised numerous points there, all of which were answered or adopted. I have no further issues to raise; the article is excellent in all respects. My one observation is a mild concern about the bizarre figures which Measuringworth.com. continues to serve up. This is not a matter for this FAC, though. I am pleased to give my support and to express pleasure in the way that Tim's series on major British musical figures is developing. Brianboulton (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for these very kind words! Your support is greatly valued. Tim riley (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 06:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Support. Disclaimer: I have proofread this article twice over the past few months and believe that the text, references and images comply with the FA guidelines. This is a very comprehensive and readable article about an important conductor and innovator in orchestral conducting, and a worthy addition to our growing list of classical music FAs. The piece is well illustrated, well written and well-structured. Tim riley's careful research and extensive knowledge of British music, musicians and recordings is evident. I heartily support this nomination. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Greatly appreciated - thank you! Tim riley (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Images Two thirds of these images originate in the UK, yet they are all tagged with US copyright tags, please tag the images with their copyright status in their country of origin Fasach Nua (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Query - Fasach Nua's image concern is several days old—Tim? --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • So sorry. I was waiting to see if anyone agreed with that comment. I thought I had selected the recommended tag. Happy for any guidance anyone can give on this. Tim riley (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I have added UK copyright tags Jack1956 (talk) 12:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support - article is well-written, well-researched and fully sourced and is a credit to Wikipedia. It clearly meets all the criteria for FA status. Jack1956 (talk) 12:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Warmest thanks to Jack1956 both for the support and the very kind help with the copyright tagging. Tim riley (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I made some observations at the peer review all of which were dealt with to my satisfaction, and on reading through this article again I find that it has improved even since then. Meets all of the FA criteria in trumps. Malleus Fatuorum 17:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - and PR - most gratefully acknowledged. Tim riley (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Image review Despite Fasach Nua's assertion, the source country copyright status is irrelevant for images hosted by enwiki, as long as they were published pre-1923 and are marked properly with {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} (the image sourcing is very well done). The response by another user to tag with {{PD-UK}} is imo mostly correct, though not finally cleared up to me yet in its rationale in two cases. This has no bearing on the correct licensing for enwiki, however, and is only relevant for the Commons. All images are fine. Hekerui (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks to Hekerui for this; it really is invaluable to have this expert input on images. Tim riley (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Extremely comprehensive and very well written. Just one comment:

I'm not very happy with the article title. OK, apparently he always used the "J.", but everybody who knows about him thinks of him as just Henry Wood. The Proms article refers to him almost throughout as Henry Wood, except for one link to the redirect Henry Joseph Wood. I'd much prefer Henry Wood (conductor) as a title, in the same vein as John Adams (composer), which replaced the unintuitive John Coolidge Adams. I see that there was a short discussion on the Talk page which resulted in a move to the current title, but not many editors were involved. --GuillaumeTell 22:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to GuillaumeTell for the support. I am wholly biddable about the title (and indeed rather inclined to Guillaume's view) and will happily go along with any consensus on the matter. Tim riley (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I would support such a move if Tim riley wishes to make it, although it is not related to whether this article is promoted to FA-class. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

That is my view also, but I would wait until this FAC is resolved before making the change. Brianboulton (talk) 09:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Leaning towards support. Just a few issues:

Lede:

• "Born in modest circumstances, to parents who encouraged his musical talent, Wood started his career as an organist." Possibly lose the first comma.
  • Done
• "After similar work for Richard D'Oyly Carte " He was Carte's accompanist? I think a little rephrasing is in order here.
  • Done
• " The high point of his operatic career was conducting the British premiere of Tchaikovsky's Eugene Onegin in 1892." Is this not a matter of opinion? And I don't see where it is supported in the body.
  • Redrawn – it was, in truth the only interesting thing about Wood's operatic conducting career.

Biography: Early:

• "half-a-crown" Even with the note, I would express this as "a [[half crown (British coin)}|half crown]]"
  • Done.
• " to give recitals there" Where? I gather it was held in a specific building, it might be wise to name it.
  • Done – sort of: it was a temporary exhibition building with no name other than that
• " Ebenezer Prout" I would very briefly describe him inline. Say "composer Ebenezer Prout", although it seems he did other things too.
  • Musicologist is his greatest claim to fame. I've used that. (Actually, his greatest claim is being commemorated in the words long ago fitted to Bach's fugue in G minor BWV 542 - "Old Ebenezer Prout's a very silly man; he plays Bach's fugues as quickly as he can", but I don't think that is quite appropriate for the article.)

Opera:

• "later insisted on programming it" It might be wise to mention that what is being talked about is Sir Arthur's "serious" music, that is, without Gilbert.
  • Done
• "ad hoc". I'm uncertain if this really needs to be capitalized, it is a bit jarring as is.
  • Done. This is borderline naturalised, I always think.
• "but such conducting jobs were far removed from the revered status given to British conductor-composers such as Sullivan, Charles Villiers Stanford and Alexander Mackenzie, or the rising generation of German star conductors led by Hans Richter and Arthur Nikisch" Rephrasing needed here, I think as you are comparing jobs to people.
  • Redrawn

Early years of the Proms

• " where he became acquainted with". Where he met.
  • Done
• "newly built" Should there be a hyphen there?
  • Possibly. I notice that hyphenating such compound attributive adjectives is less common in UK than in U.S. prose. Done, anyway.
• I would avoid using the term "promenade concerts" in consecutive sentences. Perhaps "such concerts" for the second use?
  • Done
• " the miscellaneous light music customarily offered." Well, that phrase is worth half a guinea! Why not just say "the usual light music"?
  • Not absolutely persuaded, but done.
• "the promenade" As this word is being used alone for the first time, i would say a link or explanation is called for.
  • Yes - done
• "Wagner opera" And yet the first work was the overture from Rienzi written by ... written by ... well, maybe a little rephrasing's in order, though this is a tough one.
  • Redrawn – "further" rather than "extensive" Wagner excerpts makes the point, I think
• " a layout that has become common" Perhaps insert "since" or "now" before "become".
  • Done.
• "affinity with Russian composers." This may be a Britlish usage I'm not familiar with, but I had to think about this to ensure that I understood that it meant that he favoured presenting their works. It might be good to rephrase it.
  • Interesting. I think you must be right, as none of the British reviewers have commented on it. Redrawn anyway.

Early twentieth century

• "their project of improving the public's taste" Hmm. Maybe a bit of highbrow POV there?
  • Except that Newman has been quoted earlier in the article to the effect that this was his plan.
• "In the early years" Of the Proms?
  • Yes – done.
• "Forty players resigned en bloc and formed their own orchestra: the London Symphony Orchestra. Wood bore no grudge and attended their first concert, although it was 12 years before he agreed to conduct the orchestra." Purely editorial preference, but this could do just fine in the previous paragraph.
  • Done.
• " and it became a fixture at the lively concert celebrating the end of each season, the "Last Night of the Proms"." Hm, I would reverse this, say: "and it became a fixture at "The Last Night of the Proms", the livly concert celebrating ..."
  • Done (and now I look at it "celebrating" is hardly the word – I've changed to "marking".)
• "In 1906," I might lead off this paragraph with something that tells the reader it will be about his wife, just so the reader doesn't think you are going out of chronological order.
  • Good – done.
• "his skill in that art was greatly missed." By whom?
  • Done
• "Throughout this period" I might say "Throughout the pre-war years"
  • Done
• "Wood was leading a change in the habits of concertgoers." Well, I don't know if I would say "leading" because he wasn't a concertgoer in the ordinary sense. Perhaps "advocating"? I'll give it some thought.
  • Redrawn
• " in the years around 1911" delete, especially if you adopt my pre-war suggestion.
  • Done
• "The balance of his programming" Doesn't look balanced to me, looks like Bayreuth West. Is this another Britishism?
  • I laughed aloud at this. Yes – in UK usage "balance" in this sense does not imply equality, but I've redrawn.
• "Chappell's were also less keen". I would not start consecutive sentences with "Chappell's". The word "keen" may be slightly too informal in tone.
  • Both done
• "Wood was invited back the following year." Did he go?
  • He did; I've redrawn

BBC

• "In his memoirs, Wood mentioned neither his second marriage nor his subsequent relationship." You'll need a cite, you know.
  • Done.
• "Boult, who was" Sentence needs dividing.
  • Redrawn. It was a horrible sentence, now I revisit it. Very glad you mentioned it.

Honours

• ". His library of 2,800 orchestral scores" Double use of word "library".
  • Malleus Fatuorum has beaten me to it and kindly changed the first "library" to "collection"

That's all I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

A lot of excellent stuff in these points. I'll attend to them over the next day or two and report back. Meanwhile, thank you. Tim riley (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Later - I have incorporated all your suggestions with the exception of the first one under "Early twentieth century", above, for the reason I have given. I am indebted for some really good points, which have improved the article. Tim riley (talk) 10:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed the hyphen in "newly-built" for two reasons. First, adverbs clearly modify their verb, so there is no need of a hyphen to avoid ambiguity. Secondly it was inconsistent with the "newly rebuilt" earlier in the article. Malleus Fatuorum 14:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

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