Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Short Symphony/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 15 September 2021 [1].

Short Symphony edit

Nominator(s): GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Aaron Copland's second symphony. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • In anticipation about concerns over the Hilliard dissertation, I have found that he is now a composer and credited as a "scholar of Aaron Copland’s music and life". (See 1 and 2) Also per the thesis' introduction, it appears to be written under the review of Edward Troupin (music professor) and Dr. William Hedges (another professor), among others. Not sure though if this fully satisfies requirements listed at WP:SCHOLARSHIP, especially since I have not yet found any third party sources citing Hilliard's thesis or publishing in a reviewed journal. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:12, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Link20XX edit

Will leave comments soon. In the meantime, if you could give me some comments on my peer review, it would be much appreciated. Link20XX (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here is a comment regarding the lead, as a non-expert in this subject, I do not know what "three movements" and "changing meters and syncopated rhythms" mean. Could this be put in simpler terms? Link20XX (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies on the time, but I am still reading through the article. Everything looks good so far, except for one more WP:JARGON word. Can the word "sextet" be linked or reworded? I have no idea what it means as a non-expert in music. Link20XX (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Link20XX, did you want to return for another look and further comments? I would prefer to see a bit more commentary before we look at closing this and since you voiced an early interest... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:55, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When I last looked this over, it was all right. You can promote it with my Support. Link20XX (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from buidhe edit

  • Image review: the only issue I'm seeing is that it's not clear from the commons description if the 1962 photograph was actually published under US law (which requires distribution to the public) and it could have been published earlier with a copyright notice. FYI a phD thesis should be ok for WP:RS. (t · c) buidhe 20:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh thanks, that's a relief on the thesis side of things. As for the image, I'll look into that. I may replace it with a different one. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 20:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Buidhe: I couldn't really sort out the copyright notice issue, so I just replaced the image with one from a roughly similar time but uploaded by the author. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 04:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately, I had to nominate that image for deletion. I've checked all the images in the Copeland category and there's one that I feel confident about from a licensing standpoint, and that's Aaron Copland USD Alcalá 1975.jpg With this kind of photograph you can be reasonably confident it wasn't published anywhere else first. (t · c) buidhe 04:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Aza24 edit

Great to see this here, some initial comments below (going to jump around a lot):

  • "demonstrates a shift in Copland's style towards polytonality and serialism"—not clear what it's shifting from, persay. My guess what be neoclassicism, but perhaps you have a more succinct qualifier
    • I've consulted my sources, and I couldn't say for sure either. Instead of implying a shift, I just said that Copland developed an interest in serialism, and that the symphony incorporated influences from that interest. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 07:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see, the new wording is definitely an improvement; however, we might want to make it clear that this interest is a new one, perhaps "the composer's increasing interest" or "the composer's emerging interest"? Aza24 (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In order to sum up the article fully, I would include something brief about the nature of the ensemble size (e.g. to sum up the instrumentation section). It seems somewhat standard forces; besides the addition of heckelphone and piano as well as absence of low brass
  • "past travels", surely "travels" alone means the same thing
  • I would add a brief snippet about recordings to the lead. Maybe something like "The work has been recorded a few times, including two with Copland conducting"
  • I will admit, I'm a bit confused by Copland's quote on percussion; is the irony that he did use percussion by using piano, or is he getting at something else? Perhaps a little context to clarify, but maybe this is just me
    • I'm kind of confused as well; it's not too clear in the thesis. I'll omit for now. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 07:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • But alas, it would be really nice to see any amount of actual music in the article. Any theme (well, preferably multiple); is this something you have a way of doing? If you know what you'd include, I could figure out something in Finale myself if it's any assistance
    • Yeah, I've never really figured out how to properly do this on Wikimedia Commons (even uploading paintings for me is kind of confusing, with the licensing and all that). I guess the first few bars of each movement would do fine, since that's what most other articles do. Besides that, I don't have anything else in mind. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 07:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • This feels like a must; I'm happy to assist—if you can give me some exact measure numbers and movement requests I'll see what I can do... Aza24 (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for offering to help. I was going to name the measure numbers, but only now did I realize that since this was an orchestral piece, it wouldn't be as easy as dropping measure numbers. I went ahead with just doing it myself based on Hilliard's analysis. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 02:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Looks great!
  • We should give some translations somewhere for the Italian tempos
    • I wiktionary linked the translations (I'm assuming that those who are willing to read this far either a. don't need the translations or b. are willing to click on the links as for other music terms) GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 07:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that the link on "Copland Conducts Copland (MS-7223)" to Columbia Masterworks Records makes sense, it seems misleading. Perhaps link just the "(MS-7223)" to Columbia Masterworks Records or maybe the earlier "Columbia" instead
  • If that is truly a complete discography, then I struggle to rationale its need for a separate article. Regardless though, it should be included that Copland recorded again with the LSO and some of the more notable orchestras could be briefly mentioned, perhaps the SFS and NBC? I presume some of the chamber groups were using the chamber version?—might be notable as well.
    • I kept the two articles separate so that the cite styles could remain the same (this main article uses exclusively short refs, which I'm not sure how to apply for the All Music links). Also, the 1991 recording is likely not a second performance (Copland died in 1990) but rather a re-release of the 1969 recording (can't tell though, since I don't have access to it). GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 07:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The performance of the symphony in the recording" is somewhat clunky, is their a way to smooth this out, perhaps combining with the earlier sentence (maybe with a semi colon?)
  • Hmmm, given his earlier association with the work I would definitely add that Stokowski recorded it, though I'm not sure when, as I don't know that he did so 30 years after his death like the discography suggests! Aza24 (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the discography gives the release date of the record only, not the recording/performance date. I'll see if I can find an earlier date (hopefully original edition). GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 07:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Aza24: Thanks for your thoughtful review! I tried to meet these points as best I could; please let me know if there's more I can do. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 07:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking good, definitely leaning towards support. I left some responses to a few things; I suspect that the "[discog 3]" and such in the recordings is meant to be "Allmusic #"? Aza24 (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Uh, for AllMusic urls, I just went with a separate ref group called "discog" to keep them separate from the short refs. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 02:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to support a fine article, especially not that it's sprinkled with musical excerpts. Aza24 (talk) 07:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley edit

Music examples: the norm for FAs about concert works is that they have illustrative excerpts from the printed score, sound clips, or both. I imagine getting usable sound clips would be difficult, but you can certainly use small extracts from the printed score. Otherwise, no complaints about the musical analysis, which is clear and as jargon-free as such things ever can be if they are to be thorough.

A few points on the prose:

  • Copland later arranged the symphony as a sextet to make it more playable – does this mean making it available for more performances?
  • Others agreed with Copland's assessment, however – this is the first of nine "howevers" in the text. All nine could advantageously be removed. None of them add anything useful and they clutter the prose.
    • I disagree that "none of them add anything useful", since they are used to clarify otherwise contrasting/conflicting statements and improve logical flow. I did cut some of them out where they did appear unnecessary, reducing the total down to 4 "however"s spread roughly evenly over the article. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While staying at the Yaddo estate – is the location of any relevance?
    • I mean, where Copland composed the piece should be included wherever possible. It does not have any explicit connection to anything else in the article, but it's a fact that should still be included I feel (like the exact date of the work's premiere for example). GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the fall of 1932 – the manual of style bids us avoid dating events by reference to the season, as our readers in the southern hemisphere have their seasons the other way about. If you have a month, excellent, otherwise "towards the end of" would perhaps be better than "in the fall of". (I think the mention of "the fall season", later on is fair enough.)
    • My source only specifies as far as "fall of 1932". I don't think "towards the end of" would be better than "in the fall of", however, since readers probably have an even greater variation in what they consider "towards the end of" a year to be (some may consider it to be just the month of December, or even Christmas-time, which isn't even fall). Context here that Copland is in Mexico should be enough for all readers (regardless of hemisphere) to judge what time/month period we're referring to. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • declined to premiere … agreed to conduct the work's world premiere… It premiered in Mexico City – three premieres in a row. A bit of a variety would be welcome.
  • Koussevitzky allegedly replied "Non ce n'est pas trop difficile, c'est impossible!" – seems surprising: why would Koussevitzky, who was Russian, speak to Copland in French?
    • Koussevitzky was Russian-born, but lived/worked most of his life elsewhere (e.g. he spent considerable time in France). "Serge" is actually the French-language spelling of "Sergei", so I wouldn't be surprised if he could speak French (I couldn't actually find a source explicitly saying so, though). GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Copland's French was more than serviceable, too, after his spell in Paris studying with Boulanger, so I suppose the exchange is plausible, and you do say it is merely alleged. Fine with me, therefore. Tim riley talk 21:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • and he led the NBC Symphony Orchestra – I'd be careful with "led": the orchestral player called the concertmaster in the US is called the leader in Australia, Britain and elsewhere.
  • Copland, possibly under a suggestion by Bernstein – curious choice of preposition.
  • The musicologist Bryan R. Simms believed – the past tense for "believed" might be taken to imply that Mr Simms no longer believes it.
    • We can't say for sure, since the source was written ~15 years ago. My standard is to use past tense for any beliefs/written statements on a piece, regardless of whether the author is alive or not. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per discussion in Piano Sonata No. 31 FAC discussion, changed all analyses from reputable sources to present tense. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 02:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • audience, he claimed that the Short Symphony revealed the "genius" of Stravinsky – I'd be cautious about "claimed": when used about a statement it has distinct overtones of disbelief or at least suspicion.
    • Changed "claimed" to "assessed" (though I'm sure to virtually all people, a critic deeming Copland to be an "inadequate" composer is a very questionable judgement) GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nevertheless, the symphony was lauded by others. – does "nevertheless" add anything useful here?
  • Carlos Chávez, the work's dedicatee and premiere conductor – you've already told us that.
  • The recording's performance was delivered by Copland and the London Symphony Orchestra – a strange way of putting it. Something less convoluted such as "Copland conducted the London Symphony Orchestra" might be preferable.

Those are my few comments on the drafting. As to the content I think the article is clear, balanced, comprehensive without going into excessive detail, and sensibly laid out. With a bit of polishing of the prose and a few music examples this certainly has the potential for FA in my view. – Tim riley talk 10:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: Thank you for your review. I have addressed the points you have laid out so far, and please feel free to follow up. :) GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Following a final read-through I'm happy to support. The prose now seems to me OK, and the addition of the music extracts makes an enormous and beneficial difference. The article now strikes me as meeting all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 21:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

- spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

  • "the fast first and third movements are in sonata-allegro form" - the text agrees on the first, but not the third
  • The text says "the third movement resembles the sonata-allegro form, [but] it does not adhere strictly to it". Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "influences from his travels to Germany and Mexico" - text supports the latter but not the former
  • I would suggest rephrasing the lead to be clearer. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quotes should be cited in the lead even if repeated later
  • Is there a reason discography refs were separated from the others?
  • The others are in short ref form while the discog refs are in messy url form. Also helps separate the scholarly sources used in the article body from the discog websites. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 02:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason to do things that way though? Why not use a consistent format throughout? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good, except that either we should move "other published sources" down, or change that header to something else - web sources are published. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want the "other published sources" section to stay above the Internet sources, since these are more critical to the article than the webpages. I renamed the section to "other printed sources". GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first two footnotes need citations
  • Footnote cites should be the same as the cites at the end of the sentences they are in. Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 02:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN25 should use 'pp'
  • Ranges should use endashes, even in titles
  • Copland 1955: the formatting here is confused. Are you citing the work itself, or the record on the website? If the former, the archive should be credited with |via= if at all; if the latter, Boosey & Hawkes should not be included. Similar formatting concerns around Hilliard.
  • I'm citing the former. Done for Copland, and fixed Hilliard (URL used to link to pdf on university website, not archive.org). GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 02:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Hilliard, this isn't from the Wayback Machine portion of the archive.org; the document credits the publisher as the university broadly, not specifically the library. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in when/if you include publication locations
  • Be consistent in whether you include publisher for periodicals. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Thanks for the source review. I hope I addressed all of the points to your satisfaction. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 02:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria ? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Graham Beards edit

The third sentence is terribly repetitive: is there a way of avoiding "form", "form", "form", "form"? Something needs to be done if the introduction is ever used as a basis for a TFA blurb. Graham Beards (talk) 08:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can cut the second "sonata-allegro" form to just "sonata-allegro", but I can't change the fact that formally speaking, these structures should be referred to as "sonata form", "ternary form", "cyclic form". GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 11:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, it might read better if it were split into two sentences: "The symphony's first movement is in sonata-allegro form and its slow second movement follows an adapted ternary form. The third movement resembles the sonata-allegro but with indications of cyclic form." Graham Beards (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All right, done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 13:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support wrt Criterion 1a. -Graham Beards (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Short_Symphony/archive1&oldid=1044474682"