Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Walter Bache/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 SandyGeorgia 16:12, 31 July 2010 [1].

Walter Bache

edit

Walter Bache (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Jonyungk (talk) 00:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a largely unsung hero of Western classical music in the 19th century, one whose efforts had a decided impact yet whose story has only recently been retold. I am nominating this for featured article because after feedback this article received as a result of peer review, I am convinced it meets FA criteria and is overall of FA quality. I would greatly appreciate any further comments to improve the article still further and thank contributors to this review in advance for their time and effort in doing so. Thanks especially to Tim riley, Ruhrfisch and Brianboulton for their help in peer review. Jonyungk (talk) 00:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: The sources look fine, but there are format and organisational issues:-

  • Encyclopedia Britannica wikisource. I am not sure why this has been formatted like this, rather than as an ordinary citation to the EB. How does entry this connect to the text of the article?
  • When two or more works from the same author are cited, it is normal for these to be distinguished thus: "Allis (2006)" and "Allis (2007)" etc – rather than by repetitions of book titles. Likewise, where only one work by the author is listed, the short citation form should be (e.g.) "Bache, 130". These are not critical points, but they could enable the reflist to be simpler and tidier.
  • The Kennedy and Schonberg books do not appear to be cited in the article, and should therefore be listed separately as "Further reading", or deleted.
  • The James Duff Brown book entry should be formatted in the same manner as the other books. In particular the date and publisher need to be shown. The relevant page number from this book should be added to ref 39.
  • Nitpicks
    • Consistency required in page range formats. E.g. 37 "322–4", 52 "115–16"
      • Question: I was under the impression that the numbers 10-19 were exceptions to the formatting for range formats, as shown above. If this is not so, what would you suggest as a compromise? Jonyungk (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was unaware of the exception to which you refer. I thought one chose a range style (examples: 331–332 or 331–32 or 331–2) and stuck with it. But it's not a sticking point with me. Brianboulton (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would have expected capitalisation in the article title "A survey of the late piano works."

These are all minor points and can be quickly resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as noted above, I peer reviewed this and all of my concerns were addressed then. I find this meets the FA requirements and that it is a fascinating article, well done! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The Working Man's Society seems out of sequence; ODNB describes it as one of the ways Bache spread familiarity with Liszt, and it really ought to go in the same section as his annual concerts, also of 1867-9; it could also use expansion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for this observation. Unfortunately, I do not have access to the ODNB. However, both Walker and Constance Bache mention the Working Man's Society as being more focused on Wagner's music than Liszt's. I agree that the section could be expanded should more information become available; at this time, though, such information is not at hand. Jonyungk (talk) 14:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I have watched this article grow, and gave it a detailed peer review. I knew little of Bache before, beyond the few mentions in Watson's Liszt biography, and now I feel well informed. One unsolved mystery from the peer review - how do you say the name? Is it "Batch", "Bach" as in J.S., or "Back"? The world awaits. Brianboulton (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it might be a "long a" and an "sh" sound at the end, so "Baysh". Please do tell! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very good question. I don't know the answer offhand, and as I am terrible at pronouncing British and Scottish names, my inclination to pronounce it as "Bachie" is most likely extremely incorrect. I agree, though, that there should be something indicating pronounciation in the article. How would someone find this out? Jonyungk (talk) 21:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a biographical dictionary entry from 1915 for his brother which shows it as "bātch", which suggests the t was pronounced, something like beɪt͡ʃ. (I am sure someone more fluent in IPA could do it better.) --Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - all verifiably in the public domain.
  • There are three photos of Bache from a book published in 1901, so PD US. The Hans von Bülow photo is from 1889 and is free from the Library of Congress. The August Manns photo was published in 1909 and is PD US. The image of Liszt is a photo of a painting from 1879, so is PD US too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:49, 18 July 2010 (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/Walter_Bache/archive1&oldid=1078809247"