Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Fanny Mendelssohn/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Fanny Mendelssohn edit

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it could imo be close to GA status, and would appreciate any comments, opinions, and/or suggestions for improvement. Thanks, Smerus (talk) 10:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy/reception edit

I'm still not too happy with the treatment of the Legacy (or: Reception) theme in the article. Hardly an adequate overview is given. Some of it is in the biography section, so also the grouping of that theme is far from logical. Adoption in women's studies and/or feminist literature is not more than hinted upon; similar for a relatively extended body of recorded works (many of these available in more than one recorded version); some of the content on this topic is plainly unverifiable (e.g. "each of which received positive reviews in mainstream publications", not a single reference is given to confirm that); the broad 19th-century success of her published music should get somewhat more body in the article; etc. Will try to elaborate on this (and maybe some other points), time permitting, soon, but just wanted to mention this already as an aspect of the article that still keeps it somewhat too far from "GA" quality afaics. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • As an appetiser of at least one of the reception sub-themes I'd like to present this ngram (a variant of which I presented on the talk page some time ago, when we discussed the article title): in the early 1880s, apparently, her name appeared, relatively, more often in published works than ever at any point throughout the 20th or early 21st centuries. Ngrams being a crude (and likely very inaccurate) approach to this, it seems, nonetheless, that we're missing out on a substantial part of Fanny Mendelssohn reception which occurred in the second half of the 19th century. Any suggestions on how to flesh this out? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just glancing at this section, I agree with the assessment above. I would also add that the current layout of four rather small sub-sections creates a choppy and somewhat incoherent section as a whole. I mean, do we really need a whole section for the single sentence about the museum? Aza24 (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks - I have started to address some of these points as regards content, but the structure also certainly needs reconsideration.--Smerus (talk) 15:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Ipigott edit

Smerus: It's coming along very well but I am intrigued by the huge number of compositions. Unfortunately the List of compositions by Fanny Mendelssohn does not shed much more light on them. Is it possible to provide more background, especially on how many of the unpublished pieces still exist and where they are held? It would also be interesting to know how many of the unpublished works have been performed and how they were received. And what about recordings? Maybe further info is available from "The Mendelssohn Project". I see from here that in 2009 there were plans to record all Fanny's music but can find no evidence that this was achieved. Indeed, activities seem to have ceased in 2009. Maybe Stephen Somary could provide further details. If you have already looked into all this, please excuse my curiosity.--Ipigott (talk) 11:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aza24 edit

  • Surely "early Romantic" – as the Mendelssohns, afaik, are often seen as archetypal early romantic composers, although maybe this is more so for Felix
  • I'm not sure the structure of the lead is optimal, I wonder what you would think of something like this:

"Fanny Mendelssohn (14 November 1805 – 14 May 1847),[1] later Fanny [Cäcilie] Mendelssohn Bartholdy and, after her marriage, Fanny Hensel, was a German composer and pianist of the Romantic era. She composed over 460 pieces of music, including a piano trio, a piano quartet, an orchestral overture, four cantatas, over 125 pieces for the piano, and over 250 lieder, most of which went unpublished in her lifetime."

"She grew up in Berlin... [insert the life section] died of a stroke."

"[And the final section how it was]"

  • Many thanks - I have recast as you suggest.--Smerus (talk) 13:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thoughts?
  • 460 pieces! Surely she was was the, if not among the most prolific female composers of her time? Seems worth mentioning in the lead and composition section... although I'll let you find a source for this :)
  • Really unsure about this. How many female composers of this quality were around at the time anyway? So to commend her as being 'among the most prolific female composers of her time' might appear rather, er, patronizing? I think quality, rather than quantity, is the thing......--Smerus (talk) 13:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if a sentence about her piano playing would be appropriate in the lead, seems odd to mention she's a pianist but say nothing about it till later in the article – perhaps a something about the Sunday concerts?
  • There are quite a few page numbers missing in the refs
  • I'm locked down without access to the sources - can anyone else help with the page numbers?--Smerus (talk) 12:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will come back with more soon Aza24 (talk) 20:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oops I completely forgot about this. I'll try and review the rest in the next few days. I may be able to access some of the refs with missing numbers so hopefully I can help there too. Aza24 (talk) 01:56, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2021 comments edit
  • Okay, here we go
  • The second sentence may be less than ideal by using "over" three times
  • copyedited: I left out the figure of 'over 460' total as this is a bit misleading, including components of suites, etc.--Smerus (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since we have the article, you may as well link "a piano trio" to Piano Trio (Fanny Mendelssohn) but I understand if you want to keep the linking to the genre article consistency here. Either way, looks like its not linked in the text later either
  • left this, as we are talking here only about her immediate family--Smerus (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Her uncle was the banker Joseph Mendelssohn." seems a little random – unless he ties into this someplace later that I'm missing. Same with "who was the son of philosopher Moses Mendelssohn", though Moses is certainly more notable than Joseph, are you including this to reference their Jewish ancestry more prominently perhaps?
  • "later changed the family surname to Mendelssohn Bartholdy" seems to be mentioned only a few sentences later, surely the first mention is unnecessary
  • As the early life section only goes to 1820, surely this wouldn't be an appropriate place for a sketch that was "sketched in 1829"?
  • Perhaps mention at the end of the Felix and Fanny section that neither of them ever did produce any such opera
  • Any reason Nancy B. Reich is just a "historian" rather than "music historian" like earlier?
  • "to the South" sounds a little odd to my ears, perhaps specify, "Southern Europe"?
  • Was going to do an ill link but I'm not sure; is this the correct person?
  • done the above 4, Keuedell I'm sure is right per Michael Bednarek--Smerus (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Including "(12 August 1846)" seems a little odd, granted that you don't include dates for other letters. It would be great to include the dates for the others, but certainly not necessary.
  • I will check out the dates--Smerus (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got to the Compositions section; will get through the rest tomorrow. Btw, I'm happy to convert the refs to sfn if you agree with Michael's comment below. Best - Aza24 (talk) 07:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re Keudell: the German article de:Fanny Hensel links to de:Robert von Keudell, which seems plausible given his musical interests, although calling him a 'critic' seems unwarranted – he was more of an aspiring pianist and 'amateur/connoisseur'. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aza24, many thanks for all this! If you are willing to convert refs to sfn that would be wonderful! and of course a happy, fulfilling and healthy New Year to you and Michael Bednarek--Smerus (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help, and good to hear. I'll convert the refs later today or tomorrow. Aalso, do let me know if I'm getting too picky, I recognize that you're going for GA not FA but I suppose I get carried away sometimes! Further comments below:
  • I see that you capitalize and italicize Lieder in the composition section, but not the lead or later? Would link in the body text as well
  • The "Amongst her works..." sentence feels rather long, though that may just be me
  • Angela Mace is used, but earlier you have Angela Mace Christian
  • "This is reflected for example in..." sounds a little jumbled, maybe something like "This is especially notable/present/apparent in..."
  • "a cycle of piano pieces", surely? Otherwise we wait until the quote to figure that out
  • english translation for Verlust like the others?
  • The Easter Sonata] article says it was premiered earlier; either way, it would be nice to include the performer's name in this article...!
  • I think overall the comprehensiveness and thoroughness is perfect for a GA. If you end up going for FA, the music and to a lesser extent the legacy section will doubtlessly need expansion, though I'm sure you know this Aza24 (talk) 02:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re: Angela (Regina) Mace (Christian): she published under different names. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aza24, I think I have now covered these points, many thanks for your comments.--Smerus (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Michael Bednarek edit

Picking up on Aza24's remark about insufficient citations: Stephen Rodger's name is misspelled in the short citations. Journal citations should give DOI or JSTOR. The 3 bare URLs ought to be clothed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks - have corrected Rodgers's refs. Will seek to improve journal citations as suggested.--Smerus (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be beneficial for readers and editors to use templates like {{sfn}} and {{cite book}} for short citations? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Ed edit

Ben Novotny retired in May, notwithstanding that the Wiki Ed project in which they participate, University of Wisconsin/Music and Literature (2020), is still running until 2020-12-31. They produced User:Ben Novotny/Fanny Mendelssohn, a draft of an improved version of the Fanny Mendelssohn article. I suggest we take this peer review as an opportunity to peruse that draft to see whether some of its content can be adopted in the mainspace article (inasmuch that hasn't happened yet?), and then empty the draft page if it has no further purpose. I'll leave a message to that effect on Ben's talk page, so they can step in if anything more has to be said about this, otherwise I think we may assume their silent consent. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for this but not sure that it has much bearing on the present situation - it seems that this draft was maintained as the present version of the article was being constructed by BN and other outside editors (including myself) and was adapted on an ongoing basis to include the changes in the main article which other editors outside the project suggested - therefore may not have anything much new to offer.--Smerus (talk) 13:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing edit

Many thanks Francis Schonken, Michael Bednarek, Asa24, Ipiggott, for your comments, contributions and edits. I have further corrected/replaced some of the citations. At this stage I am going to wind up the PR and think for a bit before GA application. Best, --Smerus (talk) 13:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Fanny_Mendelssohn/archive1&oldid=1003617734"