Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Symphony No. 4 (Mahler)/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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 30 November 2021 [1].

Symphony No. 4 (Mahler) edit

Nominator(s): GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 12:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Gustav Mahler's Fourth Symphony -- not his most famous symphony, but certainly a brilliant work. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 12:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • File:Symphony_No.4_by_Gustav_Mahler,_Cover.jpg: where is that licensing coming from?
    • The cover was published c. 1911, so I updated the licensing accordingly. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 13:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 100 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Kaimssaal_duelfer_1895.png: where and when was this first published? Ditto File:Felix_Weingartner_LCCN2014692334_(cropped).jpg, File:First_recording_from_Mahler_Symphony_No.4_Hidemaro_Konoye_Scan10004.JPG
    • I've looked around on the internet and in Google Books, but I couldn't find the original publication year for any of the images :( GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 13:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first two of these images have tags stating they are PD because they were published pre-1926. Can any pre-1926 publication be confirmed? If no, are there other applicable tags? For the third, any sources confirming the given tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Mahler_Symphony_No.4_in_G_major_1._Badachtig_Nicht_ellen_(Mahler)_European_Archive.ogg needs a tag for the music, and where and when was this first published? Ditto File:Mahler_Symphony_No.4_in_G_major_2._In_gemachlicher_Bewegung_(Mahler)_European_Archive.ogg, File:Mahler_Symphony_No.4_in_G_major_3._Ruhevoil_(Mahler)_European_Archive.ogg, File:Mahler_Symphony_No.4_in_G_major_4._Sehr_behaglich_(Mahler)_European_Archive.ogg. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I updated the licensing for both the music and the recording. However, I couldn't find the first publication year. Not sure whether that is a requirement for music sound files though, since for FA Beethoven Op. 110, the musopen recordings by Donald Betts didn't have any publication year listed on Wikimedia Commons. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 13:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      GeneralPoxter looks like you haven't responded to Nikkimaria's latest comments on this? Otherwise the FAC looks almost ready to promote. (t · c) buidhe 22:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, I'm just lost on what to do for these. As with my previous FACs, copyright stuff is not my forte, and I haven't been able to find anything for those images. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 22:43, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      GeneralPoxter I think all the images should be good now except File:First recording from Mahler Symphony No.4 Hidemaro Konoye Scan10004.JPG and File:Kaimssaal duelfer 1895.png which I would remove unless you can find more info on the first publication date.
      Thanks for the pointer. I've tried looking for pre-1926 publications for each of these, but couldn't find any online including Gbooks. They have been removed for now. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      All the symphony audio files have the same issue, in that in order to be in the public domain in the US the musical composition needs to have been published before 1923. I'm guessing that it was so I would just make sure that this publication is mentioned/linked in the image description. (t · c) buidhe 23:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, the files were gotten from museopen, but there's nothing there to indicate their original date, so it was basically a dead-end for the sound files. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      GeneralPoxter The issue isn't the files from musopen but the copyright of the composition. The musopen audio files are a derivative work of the composition so both aspects (composition and recording) must be free to be acceptable for use. However, this seems to indicate that the composition was published before 1923 so I think all you need to do is link this in the file description and add {{PD-1923}}. (t · c) buidhe 23:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Got it, added pd-1923. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria are you satisfied with the licensing now? (t · c) buidhe 00:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sound files edit

  • None of them play any sounds on my PCs. Graham Beards (talk) 12:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hm... Are you referring to the full recordings of the symphony, the score snippets, or both? Both seem to play fine for me. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 13:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The snippets don't function in Google Chrome. They work with Microsoft Edge. Graham Beards (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't stuck to the latest version of Chrome since it was laggy/buggy for me for different reasons. As of version 94 though, the sound files seem to work fine. Regardless, this seems more of a browser-related problem than a Wikipedia FAC problem. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 21:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree. We should fix these issues because "FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work". If this problem remains, I will have to Oppose the article's promotion. Graham Beards (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see how what seems to be an external, non-Wikipedia-related problem would affect an FAC promotion. Do other FA music snippets (like those in Mahler 8) suffer from the same problem, or is it just this article? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 22:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • The snippets in Symphony No. 8 (Mahler) work in Chrome. Graham Beards (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I might just have to disable the sound files then. They were also causing some formatting issues per the GA reviewer, and annoyingly reload for some reason every time I open the page. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 22:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • I wouldn't give up so easily. They are valuable to readers who can't hear the sounds in their heads and have to use the piano. Perhaps ask for help? Graham Beards (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • I've already consulted the help desk earlier this month on the formatting issue, but they told me to check with WP:Classical music. I haven't taken it up there yet, but after some poking around, I at least figured out what was responsible for the scores reloading and what potentially may be causing playback issues on your end. If I remove Template:Listen from the article, the audio snippets load fine (without annoying reloads or formatting issues) just like on Mahler 8. However, I know of another FA (Piano Concerto No. 24 (Mozart)) that also uses both score snippets and the Listen template and also suffers from the same "reloading" issue, so I was wondering whether audio snippets on that article are also broken for you as well? If so, can you also preview either Mahler 4 or Mozart Piano Concerto No. 24 with the Listen music template removed and see if the audio snippets work again? If you can confirm my hunch that the Listen template conflicts with not just the audio snippet formatting on my end but the playback on your end as well, it would be easier for me to file just a single bug issue with whomever maintains music scores on Wikipedia. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 00:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Yes, you are right, removing the template solves the problems with the snippets. How weird. And yes, I have the same problem with the Mozart concerto article.Graham Beards (talk) 09:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Thanks for the confirmation! I'll update here after I figure out who maintains the scores and the Listen template. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 14:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • GP, try the technical pump, it is the best place to find help with these issues imo. Aza24 (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This issue has been introduced at the technical pump. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Approaching the three-week mark with no supports, this may be archived in the near future if we don't see momentum towards promotion. (t · c) buidhe 17:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this. I'll review, tomorrow, I hope. Tim riley talk 21:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tim for the review. Not really sure what to do about the image review or the score issue, but at least prose is something I can manage. I'll be addressing your comments soon. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 21:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Support from Tim riley edit

Despite a lifelong detestation of Mahler's symphonies I feel I must comment on this article, not least because I don't like to think what my Wikipedia mentor, Brian Boulton – a strong Mahler man – would have said if I didn't. I think BB would have broadly approved of this article and he would certainly have had more useful comments to make than I can offer. But here goes with my meagre gleanings:

  • However, the symphony's final form – this is the first of six "howevers" in the article, and in my view we could do without all six: they clog up the prose and add nothing of value.
  • Mahler later finished the Fourth during his summer vacation in Maiernigg the next year – the "later" is superfluous: summer the next year is self-evidently later.
  • The British premiere on 25 October 1905 was a Proms concert delivered by Henry Wood, who conducted the Queen's Hall Orchestra and his wife, Jessie Wood, as soprano. – That's the wrong wife. In 1905 Wood was still married to his first wife, Olga. After she died he married his secretary (a bad mistake) in 1911, and finally Jessie was his third partner calling herself "Lady Jessie Wood" but never actually his wife because wife number two refused a divorce. All of which is a long-winded way of saying that this should read something like "Henry Wood, who conducted the Queen's Hall Orchestra, with his wife, Olga Wood, as soprano". (That is what the source actually says, and the BBC Prom archive confirms it.) Tangentially, "delivered" seems a strange verb here, and to an English eye "a Proms concert" looks odd: one would expect either "at the Proms" or "at a Prom concert", but I do not press either point.
    • I was wondering whether you could provide the citation for these sources? I am convinced that what you claim is correct (since you worked on the FA after all), but a search for "Olga" in the original source (Mitchell 1999) doesn't return anything, while Mitchell explicitly claims that the soprano was "Jessie Wood" on page 553. I believe the most likely explanation here is that Mitchell made a mistake, in which case the source needs to be substituted with the ones you provided (rather than just assume Mitchell meant Olga). I rephrased the sentence as well. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 13:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Plenty of reliable sources. Half a dozen or more contemporary press reports credit "Mrs Wood" or "Mrs Henry Wood" (that is, in 1905, Olga), as does Cox, p. 58 (Cox, David (1980). The Henry Wood Proms, London: BBC. ISBN 978-0-563-17697-8). For a specific mention of her given name, you can cite the BBC Proms archive in its listings for that concert. Tim riley talk 08:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • nine concerts during which Mahler's complete opus was played for the first time – really everything he ever wrote? Or do you mean just the symphonies?
    • Blaukopf writes: "offered the entire opus of Mahler" without any further clarification. The Mahler 8 article, though citing the same source and page, claims that this meant "Mahler's completed symphonies and his major song cycles". I believe, however, that this can be substantiated by Langford 1920 by simply counting which works he mentions in his review. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 13:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Blaukopf is unequivocal, I agree, and so I'm happy with the sentence as drawn. Tim riley talk 08:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • transferred to Boosey & Hawkes, but Boosey & Hawkes's 1943 edition – perhaps "the latter's" or "their" the second time?
  • For the complete discography, see Mahler Symphony No. 4 discography – my italics, meaning do you guarantee that our discography is in fact complete?
  • The symphony was first performed by boy soprano in 1983 – first performed on record or tout court? If the latter I think you need a very solid reference for such a sweeping statement.
    • The only other source I could scrounge for this is the one used by the James Westman article (So 1998) to substantiate its similar claim. However, nowhere in this source does it actually mention him being the first. Furthermore, the same source claims that he first performed with the Boston Youth Chamber Orchestra, meaning the performance with the BSO wouldn't even be the first tout court. If it's okay with you, I'll simply opt for removing this claim altogether. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 13:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The citation to the Mahler Foundation page is definite enough that this was the first performance with a treble soloist, and I have no further quibble on this point. Tim riley talk 08:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The piano and voice score of "Das himmlische Leben" was completed on 10 February 1892 while the orchestra and voice score was completed on 12 March 1892 – something done in Feb is not done while something is being done in March. A simple "and" (or semicolon) would be preferable to "while" here.

Those are my few comments. The article seems to me to cover the work fully and the prose serves its purpose. I expect to be adding my support at my next visit. Tim riley talk 00:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All looking good. I'll be back (later today I hope) after a final read-through. Tim riley talk 08:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 16:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the unresolved problems with the sound templates? Graham Beards (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have I misread the exchange? It looked to me, and still does, as though the matter is a technical one, not within the nominator's gift to influence. Or have I completely misunderstood? Tim riley talk 19:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A potential cause has been identified. What steps have been taken to fix the issue? We would not allow links to broken images. This article is not fit for the Main Page as it stands. Graham Beards (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, and I may be wrong, this article (in my view) represents the best WP has to offer, and qualifies for FA. If WP has technical problems displaying it properly on certain browsers, that is not, I think, a reasonable pretext for opposing its promotion. Tim riley talk 23:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A task has been filed to address this issue. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 00:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Aza24 edit

Looking now. Aza24 (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "perceived inferiority to the Second Symphony" — maybe "perceived inferiority to the 'popular/well-recieved' Second Symphony" or something?
  • It seems a little backhanded (which I know was not the intention) to name Mengelberg and Walter but not Hidemaro Konoye and have "Japanese rendition" instead. Not finding a huge issue with this though, but worth considering
  • I would think the premiere soprano should be included in the lead and infobox?
    • I'll include it in the infobox, but I haven't included names of more notable soloists in the lead, so I'll keep the lead as is. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could consider linking to Movement (music)
  • Donald Mitchell could use an adjective ('scholar', 'musicologist' what not)
  • Linking 'war' to WW2 seems odd, perhaps just going to the Post-war article is more to the point?
  • If you're capitalizing "Death" as the 'personification', a link to Death (personification) seems warrented
  • "triple fortissimo" (3 x ff) would mean ffffff, I think you mean triple forte! This happens twice later in the article (do link the dynamic as well)
    • I was confused by this as well when I was writing, but this is the exact wording La Grange uses on page 768 of his Mahler biography/analysis, and didn't give it much thought. However, I just checked the score and you are correct in that Mahler denoted a triple forte "fff" instead of "ffffff". Fixed and linked. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Typical La Grange!! Aza24 (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Does he usually make mistakes like these? I might keep that in mind if I'm going to do more Mahler-related research. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 04:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " poetry collection of the same name" could use some modification to make the folk aspect clear (i.e. just saying "folk poetry collection...") so it doesn't sound like its a set of poems by a specific poet
  • I personally prefer ill links for outside wiki articles (i.e. Felix vom Rath [de]), so I thought I'd propose it as an option
  • There are quite a few dup links, not sure how many of them are accidental, and how many are on purpose
    • I'm not sure which ones in specific you are concerned about. I did link some articles twice in the body, but I believe that was usually if the term hasn't been mentioned for a long time in the prose. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mainly the orchestras and conductors, but if they were intentional, I have no issue, I just figured I'd bring it up
  • Do we know who the soprano was for the Weingartner tour?
    • I don't believe La Grange mentioned that. I'll take a look again. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Any luck? Aza24 (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, in the 1995 edition of La Grange's biography, it is noted that Michalek performed at Karlsruhe, but the other cities still remain unknown. Since the tour took place on consecutive days, it could be assumed that she also peformed in the other cities, and Weingartner does note that for the "performances", Michalek had "done her part very charmingly and with great success". What do you think? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 04:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • That seems like enough evidence that Michalek did the whole tour. I feel like the reason it isn't spelled out clearly is because it is implied; if another soprano(s) had done other cities I would expect that would be recorded (but since it isn't recorded, presumably that means it was all Michalek, if my logic makes sense). Aza24 (talk) 09:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am some what astonished that Kathleen Ferrier sang the soprano part for this work!
    • That was a mistake on my part; that should have been for Das Lied von der Erde. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really think that the links in the instrumentation would be far more effective if to the section articles, i.e. String section instead of String instrument
  • Got to III. Ruhevoll, poco adagio, more later Aza24 (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Aza24 are you able to finish this review? (t · c) buidhe 06:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Able?—Yes. Willing? hmmmmmm ;) Aza24 (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a transfigured cradle song" is a surprisingly accurate way to put the 3rd movement!
  • There is actually an article on Parsifal bells, which might be worth linking to
  • Stein omits all the bassoons and horns? Not sure this is completely clear as phrased
  • I know Abbado recorded the symphony twice, and since those are some big names I suspect other conductors did (or more than twice) as well. It might be worth including years or orchestras in parentheses after the names of conductors, otherwise you aren't relaying directly the recommendations being sourced. Aza24 (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Thanks for the thoughtful review! GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 05:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Happy to support, though see my response above on the Michalek matter. Aza24 (talk) 09:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mirokado edit

I'm very pleased to see this being proposed. Elly Ameling's recording with André Previn was my introduction to Mahler and remains one of my favourite recordings of anything.

  • Composition
  • Premiere
    • footnote about Margrete Michalek? She was not just a random choice, according to the Mahler Foundation she had an affair with Mahler and also sang in the world première of his second symphony.
    • "Despite this, the premiere left many in its audience incensed,[39] and the Munich press was quick to report.[45]": I think "as the Munich press was quick to report" is the natural idiom and would relate the two phrases better.
  • Instrumentation
  • III. Ruhevoll, poco adagio
    • is "an Appendix" what is later referred to as "the coda"? I got a bit confused reading this section
      • This is the terminology Floros uses to describe the section. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 07:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looking at Floros, this section is not wrong, but it is rather difficult to understand. I suggest the following changes (or similar), to help the reader visualise the structure during the first reading of the content:
        • parenthesise the contents of bar form just as already done for the five main parts, so it is clear that the Appendix is not part of the bar form:
        • --> "Floros views part A's structure as a bar form (two Stollen – the first theme followed by its variations – and an Abgesang) and an Appendix."
        • Describe the coda in a separate paragraph, following Floros, starting at "Floros calls the coda's..."
  • Footnotes
    • The Konoye image can interfere with the multicolumn notes on wider displays, perhaps no columns would be better

In response to comments from others:

  • Midi extracts: using chrome on linux, the sound plays fine but the credits button in the dialog hangs forever (it is possible to close that tab and reload). As long as problems with this dialog are being raised, I don't see that we should throw away the midi links.
  • Inter-language links. I agree with Aza24 (above) that we should provide ills when available. Apart from offering background information to the interested reader, they are one way of suggesting needed articles.
    now added, thanks. --Mirokado (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--Mirokado (talk) 14:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. --Mirokado (talk) 12:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gerda edit

Thank you for interesting expansion! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC) As usual, I skip the lead for last. I make copy-edits as I read, - revert what you don't like. The TOC reads fine, but I'd use Structure instead of Form.[reply]

Composition

  • Translations: I understand title case and italics for titles, such as The Boy's Magic Horn, but for song titles, I'd expect sentence case, such as "The heavenly life".
  • "Mahler considered the song both the goal and the inspiration for the Fourth Symphony", - how about inspiration first, - and is "goal" the best word?
    • Zychowicz writes: "the composer himself regarded the song as the goal and inspiration of the [Fourth Symphony]", which in this case could be interpreted as the thematic purpose of the work. I agree that inspiration should go first. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 06:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mahler completed "Das himmlische Leben" in 1892." - So far, we had no date/year. It's tricky to see that this line refers to something earlier than the symphony.
    • Clarified in the paragraph before that Das himmlische Leben was "an earlier song". GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 06:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Humoresken - I expected a link to his composition, not a genre, which should not be capital.
    • There doesn't seem to be an article for the composition, so I compromised by leaving the German title unlinked, and a parenthesized English translation linked. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 06:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The poem describes images from a child's vision of heaven." - How about: The poem deals with a child's vision of heaven.? - or some other way to avoid "images from a vision".
    • I specified further with "The poem describes scenes and characters from a child's vision of heaven." GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 06:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • give Third Symphony a year?
  • Where do the English movement titles come from?
  • I suggest not to link Caritas from the titles, - I expected an article about that movement. - Somewhere else in prose, ye

Subsequent ...

Form

  • Where do the English translations of the tempo markings come from?

To be continued. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the responses, and all understood, thank you for actions. I hope to get to it later today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda Arendt Are you still planning to finish the review? (t · c) buidhe 13:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Planned yes, time no - on vacation, + two recent death articles to care for in the last 2 days, + "my" open FAC where this nominator's questions are waiting. I support this as it is and may return with minor questions independent of the FAC. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review — Pass edit

References

  • #68: Other than here, the convention seems to be to refer to the author or publisher, not the title.

Books

Other

  • Archived URLs should be added as backups.
    • Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would add them for the newspapers.com sources too. As great as that site is, it's always possible it won't be around at some point. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aldrich 1904: Missing the volume/issue/page numbers.
  • Smith 1904: Ditto.
    • Alrdich and Smith both have page numbers + issue date. I don't believe these newspapers need further identifying numbers. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Newspapers.com page numbers are frequently incorrect, in that they don't account for sections. Alrdich is section 4, page 4 (which you could style as IV(4)), not page 40. Similar issue with Smith. Volume/issue numbers not required, but nice to have and easy to find (they're on the top left of the first page of each issue). --Usernameunique (talk) 02:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading

This version looked at. Looks pretty good. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GeneralPoxter, a couple minor comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 02:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:24, 30 November 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/Symphony_No._4_(Mahler)/archive1&oldid=1057918327"