Talk:Clara Schumann

Her talent

this page doesn't objectively address the talent of Clara or why she quit composing (ie internalized and cultural oppression). I made these changes and they dissappeared shortly

Name

Calling a subject by their first name throughout the article seems a bit disrespectful. Given the problem that she often needs to be distinguished from her husband and father, it is acceptable to a certain degree, but I tried to avoid it when not needed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Clara Schumann/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs) 15:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I will be reviewing this article over the next couple days, potentially making minor copyedits or fixes to the wikicode. I will also gradually fill out my review here. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Overall progress

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Review

Overall

This article is fairly well written and extensive in its coverage. However, there are a few important issues that need to be resolved, mainly with regards to the article's sourcing. All things considered, nice work! Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and the copy-editing! I'll look below, but will need time. I didn't write most of the article, so will have to look into things slowly. I will respond sooner where I know a quick answer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Verifiability & citations

• In the "Concert tours" section, on the third paragraph: Marie also wrote: "For the longer journeys we had a saloon [car], comfortably furnished with arm-chairs and sofas... the journey ... was very comfortable." On this occasion, the musicians were not "treated as inferiors". Source?

  easy will add. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

  Adding was not so easy, - the book wasn't yet among the sources, and I will use it in harvard citation, to be able to point to individual pages. Inconsistency for a while, I'm afraid. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

  A good source would be the latest biography by Beatrix Borchartdt, but I don't have it. Anybody? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

  ... but at least I found her earlier book which may help with the sourcing questions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• The fourth paragraph of the "Concert tours" section is unsourced.

  Can't find a ref for that, sorry, dropped. Found something good, however. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• The fourth paragraph of the "Family life" section is unsourced.

  It's sourced now - more or less a summary of other facts anyway - but for the last line which is not crucial and commented out until I happen to find something. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• The source for the second paragraph of the "Performance repertoire" section needs some page number(s) or a more exact method of identifying where the information came from.

  Finally something easy: p 79. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

  Sorry, I'm not trying to make this too difficult. ;) Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  It's not you ;) - The sourcing makes it difficult. Much of it offline, and the same book quoted in different editions, with different page numbering. - Almost better to write something from scratch ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• The "Compositions" section needs citations for some of the material, especially the quotes and claims like "Today her compositions are increasingly performed and recorded.", to pass Wikipedia:Verifiability.

  I'll look for citations. Her compositions were not recorded at all, and now they are. That's probably not what you want to heare but true ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

  Please look again. The Reich ref has a complete lists of her works, and I found also another to support the "once forgotten, now played again", BBC on International women's day ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  Looks good now! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

• The third paragraph of the "Impact during her lifetime" section claims "She was also instrumental in getting the works of Robert Schumann recognized, appreciated and added to the repertoire. She promoted his works tirelessly throughout her life." This needs a source.

  Where to look? Its sort of a summary of that she encouraged him to compose, played his works, edited them for publication, and all this is sourced, - what else? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

  same Reich --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  Also looks good. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

• What makes "www.musicacademyonline.com" a reliable source? It does appear that some of the founders and other higher-ups have PhD's, so it could be a reasonable source for noncontroversial or minor claims.

  Will move it to external links and replace, after some RL. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

  Not today. Will first have to find better sources for her education. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

  that one is gone --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• What makes "brainpickings.org" a reliable source? The claim it's supporting is suspect, so is Maria Popova qualified to make this claim?

  The claim that it's hard to tell where between friendship and love the relationship of Clara Schumann and Brahms can be described, is not "suspect", but as above, will look for a better source. More tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

  How is this? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

  That definitely looks like a better source. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  Fine, will use (but not immediately)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  used now --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks for changing to a reliable source! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Copyediting

I'd appreciate help from Jmar67. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I will look at points below. Jmar67 (talk) 10:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• In the lede: "After her husband's death, she toured further, especially to Britain, with a focus on chamber music, which she frequently performed with the violinist Joseph Joachim." While this sentence is technically correct English, the large number of modifier phrases make it slightly confusing, especially if a non-native speaker were to read it.

  Some of this is unnecessary in the lede, as it's already in main text; I shortened it to essentials. Chuckstreet (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  I agree. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  Thank you for great help with all this, Chuckstreet! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Second sentence in the "Child prodigy" section: "age 4-1/2". Is this how four years and six months old is written? I honestly don't know.

  nor do I, - change to what you see fit --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  After some review of my English textbooks, I believe this is correct. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

• In the "Child prodigy" section, this clause is ambiguous: "she began taking daily one-hour lessons in piano, violin, singing, theory, harmony, composition, and counterpoint". Were there seven daily one-hour lessons (one in each subject), or was there one daily lesson covering all the subjects? From context, I suspect the former, but this should be clarified.

  I'll try. The latter, - she was 5, and also had to practise ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  Looks better now! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

• In the "Child prodigy" section, there is the dependent clause "...using the teaching methods he had developed..." It could potentially be rewritten as "...using his [own] teaching methods..." for conciseness, although this isn't necessary. Thoughts?

  someone whose natiive language is English should decide --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  It looks like someone expanded the text to mention his book, so this point is now irrelevant. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

• In the third paragraph of the "Child prodigy" section, the text reads "Clara left for a concert tour". Do you think it would be better to use a more active and descriptive verb here? Unfortunately, I'm drawing a blank on what that word should be. Perhaps "performed"?

  same from me --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  Someone changed it to "toured". Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

• In the Vienna section, I added the red comma to this sentence: "Chopin described her playing to Franz Liszt, who came to hear one of Wieck's concerts, and subsequently "praised her extravagantly in a letter that was published in the Parisian Revue et Gazette Musicale and later, in translation, in the Leipzig journal Neue Zeitschrift für Musik."" Could you verify that this is what you meant when you wrote it?

  Liszt wrote the praise, not Chopin. Adding a comma makes it look as though Chopin wrote the praise; I removed the comma. Chuckstreet (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  That makes more sense! Ignore this "issue", then. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• In the "Concert tours" section, the text mentions "and a Mr. Saunders". Is this a specific person (in which case drop the indefinite article), or is this an unknown person (in which case it could be clarified as "and an unknown Mr. Saunders")?

  I found out who the Pyne sisters were, so I added that part last month, but I still can't figure out who Saunders is... I think Reich didn't know so she just referred to him as "a Mr. Saunders", which sounds cool and mysterious to me :-) Anyway, someone added a comma, making the sentence unbalanced (a hanging clause in the last part after the comma), and changing the meaning. I removed the comma and reworded the sentence better. Chuckstreet (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  That's fine! I just wanted to verify that we really didn't know who he was. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• In the "Family life" section, there is an unbalanced "not only...but also" construction: "...not only for the income but also because she was a concert artist by training and nature". Either both should be phrases or both should be clauses.

  I am not aware of such a rule and find the sentence clear as is. Jmar67 (talk) 12:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

  See here, here, and here. While the text may not be syntactically incorrect, faulty parallel constructions are jarring. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

  I also think the sentence is clear as it was, but someone added a comma which actually changed the meaning of the sentence. It was not really a "not only but also" construction at all... if you leave out the added comma. So I removed the comma again. Chuckstreet (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Reaper Eternal: While I actually disagree with some of the examples in the pages on Parallelism you cite, I still think this sentence is not truly a "not only…but also" construct. One needs to look at the entire sentence, not just the part after the word "although". Also, the preceding sentence is necessary to get the meaning. Here are the first two sentences of that paragraph:

Clara Schumann often took charge of finances and general household affairs. Part of her responsibility included earning money by giving concerts, although she continued to play throughout her life not only for the income but also because she was a concert artist by training and nature.

The meaning: The finances were Clara's responsibility. To further the finances, she gave concerts. But the reason she gave concerts wasn't JUST for finances: she also gave concerts because she was an artist and that was in her nature. That's what those two sentences are trying to convey. The entire second sentence explains the first sentence's part about finances, while it also points out an alternate reason. (The third and fourth sentences explain the first sentence's part about "general household affairs".)

Now I changed the word "only" to "just" (slightly different meaning but not by much), and removed "also" so it joins "but because" (no preceding comma!), then changed "although" to "though" (which seems to make a difference but I don't know why). Also deleted the second occurrence of "concert" (redundant and implied):

Clara Schumann often took charge of finances and general household affairs. Part of her responsibility included earning money by giving concerts, though she continued to play throughout her life not just for the income but because she was an artist by training and nature.

Does that sound or read better? If not, please suggest. Chuckstreet (talk) 19:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't like either option because I don't like linking a phrase to a clause with a conjunction, but I'm not going to hold up a GA review over something that isn't even incorrect English grammar. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• The second sentence of the last paragraph in the "Family life" section has a confusing construction. It is unclear how the "and" conjunction joins the two clauses, which appear to occur in reverse chronological order. Do you think this phrasing is better? "Marie also dissuaded her mother from continuing to burn letters she had written to and received from Brahms, who had requested that she destroy them."

  It's the description that's wrong. She was burning letters Brahms had written to her; Brahms had requested she do so. Doesn't make sense that Brahms would send her back her own letters she had written to him, with instructions to destroy them; Brahms would have destroyed them himself. I corrected this. Chuckstreet (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  I like your version better. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• The <blockquote> tag in the "Performance repertoire" could use a template like {{quote}} so you can include the author information inline with it. The same could be done with the quote in the "Compositions" section. For example:

Tomorrow precisely at eleven o'clock I will play the adagio from Chopin's Variations and at the same time I shall think of you very intently, exclusively of you. Now my request is that you should do the same, so that we may see and meet each other in spirit.

— Robert Schumann

• done, both --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• The fourth paragraph of the "Relationship to composers" section: "Brahms played his First Symphony for her before its premiere. She gave some advice about the Adagio and he took it. She wrote to him and expressed her appreciation, but mentioned her dissatisfaction with the ending of the third and fourth movements." This is partially redundant, and, as a result, somewhat confusing. What do you think about this: "Brahms played his First Symphony for her before its premiere. She wrote back expressing her appreciation but mentioning her dissatisfaction with the endings of the third and fourth movements. He took this advice."?

  done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

  It sounds like the advice was about the Adagio, not the 3rd and 4th movts, so I think it's less accurate this way to leave out mention of the Adagio. My problem, though, is this paragraph doesn't belong in this section about Clara's relationship with other composers: we already know about her relationship with Brahms. This parag should be moved to another section, so I'll reword it again and I know just where it should go... Chuckstreet (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  That works for me. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  same --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Copyright

• The text does not appear to plagiarize the sources in my spot checks.
• File:Clara Schumann 1878.jpg has a warning on it that it needs to indicate why it is public domain in the United States of America.
• File:Clara Wieck im Alter von 15 Jahren.jpg and other images have the same warning. These should all be fixed.

  Hoping for help from RexxS for the 2 pics. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

  I'm pretty sure most of these fall under {{commons:Template:PD-US-expired}}, which would resolve the warnings about US copyright. I'm unfortunately not an expert in this area, however. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

  I checked, all that haven't been deleted are fine, all that was needed was {{PD-US-expired}} tagging. Montanabw^(talk) 22:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

  File:Julius Giere - Clara Wieck im Alter von 15 Jahren (Lithographie 1835).jpg is fixed. The above redlink is the same image. Montanabw^(talk) 22:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

  Is that fied then, Reaper Eternal? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  I'm pretty sure it's all good now—sorry about the delay; I've been busy for a few days. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Image use

• Looks good!

External links

• The first external link (Claire Flynn's thesis) shouldn't exist per WP:ELNO #1 and #8.

  Looks like an interesting thesis to me, but we could move it to the compositions article if you think it shouldn't be here. --GA

  Now that several of the unnecessary links are removed, I'm not confident this really needs to go. I'll leave this to your decision about whether you want to keep it here, move it to another article, or remove it altogether. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• The "Kids music corner" external link could probably be removed per WP:ELNO #1.

  done --GA

• The "Complete works of Clara Schumann-Wieck, List of compositions" external link could probably be removed since it duplicates a Wikipedia list already linked in this article.

  was moved, per below --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Do we need three links to different websites containing music scores, or would one be sufficient?

  I found 2 good, the IMSLP because it offers actual links to the complete works, and the list because it is a complete list - two very different aspects. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

  Makes sense. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

  How about I move that list link to the List of Compositions by Clara Schumann page? That's really where it belongs. Chuckstreet (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  I think that's the correct location for this link. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• The archived website link should probably be removed. (WP:ELNO #16 partially applies here.)

  done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Other

• There is a {{clarification needed}} tag in the "Relation to composers" section.

  It says "why?" to hostility. Well, do we know why? I found this, for example, annoying but not serious, I'd say, but do we know artists? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

  I added the tag because I'm dying to know what she had against Liszt. I think we should say (if we can find out why). Chuckstreet (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  Sad that I don't know. - I modified it to less strong (don't find "hostility" in a ref), letting what she did (which follows) explain. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

(dropping in) I'm curious too! It seems to be an aesthetic disagreement. Here's a BBC podcast chatting about it [1] a short news article [2] ("I despise Liszt to the very depths of my soul") and a journal article [3] (paywalled) --Spacepine (talk) 05:26, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Could you please move this from th GA review to the article talk? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Sure, done --Spacepine (talk) 11:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

• The last sentence in the "Impact during her lifetime" mentions "the repertoire", but doesn't mention which one it is.

  There was a complete section on it, and no point to repeat it, imho. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

  Ah, yeah, that's what I get for reviewing each section and paragraph in a vacuum. I suppose "the repertoire" could be replaced with "her repertoire", but it doesn't really make much difference. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Let me know if you have any questions about these points. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Most refs look much better already, and her piano concerto is in DYK prep for 18 October, with her pic ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Pretty much all the issues preventing this from being listed as a good article are now resolved. If you intend on taking this to WP:FAC, I would recommend having another person review the prose to ensure everything is cleaned up. I'd also recommend sticking to one citation style and generally adding page numbers to the missing references. In any case, great work to all of you! Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for a detailed review which helped the article to grow considerably! Peer review will be the next step. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Clara Schumann

Thank you for your help, but the lead is rather too short than too long. The tour sentence is too complicated, but Paris and London should be there, if not Vienna also. + chamber music, as unusual for a virtoso player. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Now, heading for PR and FAC, the lead IS too short. Also, can we please have a bit of air in the citations, spaces, I mean, as a little service to future editors. I fixed 4 of them, - ref = harv requires that the "last" parameter is full, otherwise the name of the ref needs to be defined. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt -

I think the lead is supposed to be short, that's what it's for: just a "hook", enough for a summary of what the article is about, to explain the article title.

Refs: I think I finally figured it out. Films and television don't really have authors, so cast and crew names go in "others" parameter. Citation gets listed by title. Take a look, see what you think.

Air is a matter of personal preference. I like things compact. Extra spaces means more typing. Doesn't affect the display, it's just for editing. Each editor is different. If you like, you can change them all (but ALL, so it's consistent), I don't mind TOO much, no biggie for quibble. Chuckstreet (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Need more on her concertizing in the 1880s

/* Later life */

I added back the original paragraph about her 1870s concertizing, with the 1874 U.S. tour and the concerts in England and Holland and the 1877 Beethoven 5th with Bargiel. Added the ref back to all of that; it got lost in the shuffle of sentences, and the part about her arm injury got mixed up with it (both originally posted by the same user, but as separate paragraphs).

The text now jumps from her 1870s concertizing and her arm injury, to her last concert in 1891. Could we get something about her performances in the 1880s to fill the gap?

Chuckstreet (talk) 01:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for digging into that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Only: I don't see a ref for a US tour. I looked in vol 1 and vol 2 of the offline source, and can't find it, not in the given pages nor anywhere else. (There's a vol 3 that I don't see, though.) I think a tour would show here, but all 1874 mentionings are not about it (but about reduced concertizing), nor do I find it anywhere else in that text, nor New York, nor U.S.. Help?? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

The only thing I found referencing an 1874 tour in America looks suspiciously like the author was using Wikipedia as a source. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

No US tour mentioned in her entire concertizing history at www.schumann-portal.de either. But I see another problem: the dates of her arm injury and her refrain from concertizing appear to be incorrect. Judging by that concert list on the portal, the only large gap is between December 1873 and March 1875. No concertizing at all in 1874 (obviously no tour to US or anywhere). Also can we verify the correct date for the Beethoven 5th with Bargiel in Berlin? We have 1877, but I see no concert in Berlin in 1877 in the portal list. The only Berlin concerts in the 1870s were 1870, 1871, and 1875 (Oct-Dec), the next one after that was 1883 (there's a typo in two entries in that list there 1882->1883). Chuckstreet (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I hope we can, just had a few other tasks. Perhaps "injury" isn't even the right word? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Rewrote the entire section, including info on concerts in 1880s, and her regular England tours, and listed more countries. I THINK those are the correct dates of her "injury"; please check the dates in Litzmann for me, re her visit and advice from the doctor, and that quote from her in May(?). Still don't know about the 1877 Berlin concert with Bargiel Beethoven 5th; please check this one. Chuckstreet (talk) 17:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the rewrite. Sorry, can't find that Bargiel Beethoven V concert. Remove? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

The portal list says it omits performances in cities where she was living at the time, so that would be why no Berlin in 1877, and no Frankfurt in some other years. All I know is it wasn't the Berlin Philharmonic because that was founded in 1882. Clara played several times with them under Bargiel or Joachim or others conducting, in the 1880s, first time in 1883, Beethoven Choral Fantasy, later Beethoven 4th, no mention of 5th. The 1883 Choral Fantasy she played with her hand in pain from a staircase fall the day before, yet she got a standing ovation. For all accounts of her Berlin Phil concerts, they were all "tremendous successes". We could delete the 1877 ref and include the 1883 Choral Fantasy instead (with a mention of her hand injury in a letter to Brahms), but that was a different conductor; would be nice to mention Woldemar Bargiel somewhere in the article; this sentence is the only mention. What do you think? Chuckstreet (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

All good ideas, go ahead ;) - Bargiel is mentioned often, also letters between him and her, that's easy to source. Always nice to see the Choral Fantasy mentioned which was my first choral performance, age 10 ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I'll get to it tomorrow or the weekend, I'm going to relax and binge-watch Star Trek right now. :-) Chuckstreet (talk) 05:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Reich refs

I found the Grove Online version by Reich (2011) yesterday, and sourced things that it covers to it. I can't see her older books, and after the experience with the US tour and Beethoven's 5th piano concerto, I don't trust the older offline sources given, also find that they clutter the reflist. Can we have Reich 2011 at least in addition? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I found the original reference for the Beethoven 5th 1877 Bargiel and the dates of her arm injury: Litzmann vol. 1 pages 322–323 (page numbers apparently vary between editions, though). I notice for one of them you cite Litzmann vol. 2, page 42 and a Google Books link; I'll have to check that out. I fixed up many more refs today; still some <ref> to be converted to {{sfn}}. The Reich Grove is only a tiny 2 pages, written in 2001; the various text on the page that you cited as ref in Reich Grove isn't mentioned in that tiny article; it's in the Reich book, also published in 2001. The book is available online, Google Books. Some of the older refs (not counting Litzmann) have cute quotes which I like, so I put them back in :) Chuckstreet (talk) 05:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The Reich I like to quote in addition is this, it was updated on 23 February 2011, and makes for easy verify, much easier than for individual pages of a book even if online. It also has a complete works list, and a good bibliography, all concise. - Thank you for chasing the 5th concerto! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes that's the 2-page article written for Grove's 7th (the print ed.) in 2001. There's not much information in it, compared to other sources like Reich's book or Litzmann. Even the Wikipedia article is twice as long. The only thing "updated" in Grove's 8th (the online ed.) is a bibliography in 2011; the text of the article (and the list of compositions) haven't been updated since 2001. In fact, I've found new info on compositions since that was published. But my point in changing some of your new sfn refs to point to the full book instead of the 2-page article, is that some of the WP text you're referencing isn't found in the article but in the book. The Groves 8th you added in several sfn's is still referenced on this page, however; I just corrected the date. Chuckstreet (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining, - I still think that it's convenient for some things. Choir rehearsla now. Sorry about no time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the more different references we have, the more well-rounded the article will be. I don't think it's good for an entire article to be based on only one or even two references (Reich and maybe Litzmann in this case). Would seem to be biased or one-sided. The more sources the better. As for the oldness of the sources, I find nothing wrong with that (Litzmann is over a century old after all), as long as the information or assertions haven't been proven wrong by later research. Chuckstreet (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Liszt disagreements

It was questioned during the GA review why Schumann didn't like Liszt. It seems to be an aesthetic disagreement in music styles. Here's a BBC podcast chatting about it [4] a short news article [5] ("I despise Liszt to the very depths of my soul") and a journal article [6] (paywalled) --Spacepine (talk) 11:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes that Composer of the Week episode is very instructive. Donald Mcleod says: "she became increasingly repelled by his personality - both musical and, well, personal." The website notes say this:

"Distintissimo!" – most distinguished! – that’s how the 19th-century piano superstar Franz Liszt described Clara Schumann after seeing her play in Vienna in 1838. And Clara, like most people, was absolutely bowled over by Liszt – "He cannot be compared to any other player – he is absolutely unique", she wrote in her diary. But as a composer, she gradually came to detest him, and by the time of his death she could write that “his compositions lack those very qualities which he possessed as a virtuoso; they are trivial and tedious and will certainly soon disappear from the world in the wake of his passing.” Liszt, by contrast, paid Clara the compliment, late in life, of transcribing three of her songs for solo piano." Martinevans123 (talk) 11:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Sentences to be removed?

This sentence under Child Prodigy (last sentence of paragraph 2) seems silly to me:

He would sometimes dress up as a ghost and scare Clara, creating a bond between the two.

The source reference is

Reich, Susanna (1999). Clara Schumann: Piano Virtuoso,. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. p. 28. ISBN 0-618-55160-3,

a children's book, which explains the silliness. It's cute, but seems out of place and rather jarring in this article, don't you think? I vote for its deletion. Chuckstreet (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

agree --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I removed the sentence and ref, but that leaves the previous sentences without a reference. I believe they're from the same children's book, though I find those sentences useful and not silly. Can we find another reference for them? Chuckstreet (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I believe that Clara recalls Robert's ghost stories in some of the correspondence included in this work, which might be useful as a source for other details of their early life. I'm not entirely sure what would be the modern view of an 18 year-old boy taking an interest in a 9 year-old girl. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

pp

In citation templates, we don't say "p. 123" but "123", the template adds the "p." (or pp.). When a link can be modified by simply adding, often when giving a plural, such as [[lied]]er, that is the preferred way of piping, vs. [[Lied|lieder]], compare [[preludes]]s vs. [[prelude|preludes]]. It doesn't work when different spelling is needed, such as [[Symphony|symphonies]]. Consider to restore the better version. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

This discussion was moved from Chucktreet's user talk page. Nothing specific to Schumann. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Re p: yes that's the way it should work, but for some reason the template does not add the p in some of the cites, so it has to be specified manually.

Re linking partial words: you're right, my bad. A while back, I spotted one where it didn't work, it just blue-highlighted part of the word, so I corrected that, and while I was at it I "corrected" any other partial links I saw in the wikitext, not realizing those displayed fine. I'll fix. Chuckstreet (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, it seems that cite journal works differently, - always learning, and lack of consistency I think. Which leaves the other. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

More confusing: the examples in the documentation don't request a "p." or "pp.". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I see someone else already got to correcting the partial linking already, but then he also got rid of the p. Need to put that back in otherwise it doesn't display. Chuckstreet (talk) 15:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

It seems the template's fault, so better complain there instead of changing single instances in articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually no the other user did not correct the partial links; he just messed up a different one: one that does NOT display correctly [[Austria]]'s doesn't highlight properly because of the apostrophe. I fix the ones that need fixing. Chuckstreet (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Calling Dragons flight and RexxS: problem with cite journal, parameters page and pages don't add "p." respectively "pp." to page number(s) as value, while - as far as I remember - they used to do it, and cite book still does. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

The reason is that citations to scholarly journals do not conventionally normally include the "p " before the page number(s), unlike citations to books, which conventionally do. The parameter itself can be called |page= or |p= for a single page and |pages= or |pp= for a range. For citations, you should never write |page=p. 1234; only write |page=1234. Here are some abbreviated examples as illustration:

Comparison of cite journal with cite book

Wikimarkup	Result	Notes
{{cite journal |last=Hall |first=George |title=Schumann, Clara |journal=Companion to Music |year=2002 |page=p. 1124}}	Hall, George (2002). "Schumann, Clara". Companion to Music: p. 1124. {{cite journal}}: |page= has extra text (help)	N
{{cite journal |last=Hall |first=George |title=Schumann, Clara |journal=Companion to Music |year=2002 |page=1124}}	Hall, George (2002). "Schumann, Clara". Companion to Music: 1124.	Y
{{cite book |last=Hall |first=George |title=Schumann, Clara |year=2002 |page=p. 1124}}	Hall, George (2002). Schumann, Clara. p. p. 1124. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help)	N
{{cite book |last=Hall |first=George |title=Schumann, Clara |year=2002 |page=1124}}	Hall, George (2002). Schumann, Clara. p. 1124.	Y
{{cite journal |last=Hall |first=George |title=Schumann, Clara |journal=Companion to Music |year=2002 |p=p. 1124}}	Hall, George (2002). "Schumann, Clara". The Oxford Companion to Music: p. 1124. {{cite journal}}: |p= has extra text (help)	N
{{cite journal |last=Hall |first=George |title=Schumann, Clara |journal=Companion to Music |year=2002 |p=1124}}	Hall, George (2002). "Schumann, Clara". The Oxford Companion to Music: 1124.	Y
{{cite book |last=Hall |first=George |title=Schumann, Clara |year=2002 |p=p. 1124}}	Hall, George (2002). Schumann, Clara. p. p. 1124. {{cite book}}: |p= has extra text (help)	N
{{cite book |last=Hall |first=George |title=Schumann, Clara |year=2002 |p=1124}}	Hall, George (2002). Schumann, Clara. p. 1124.	Y

The template handles whether the p./pp. is inserted according to what type of cite it is. It is unfortunate that book and journal citations are not consistent with each other, but those are the scholarly conventions and the template coders merely followed them. HTH --RexxS (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I went back to the [[llied]]er, but it seems possessives don't work with that trick. Besides "Austria's" there's also "Bonn's" on that page (that I left unchanged). However, I find it unnecessary to link Austria at all, so I completely removed the link. As for p, we should leave it until the template gets "fixed". It might be just an alternate style for journals, but I don't like it. The date runs into the page number and it looks weird; better to have a p in there... and then there's consistency... Chuckstreet (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

You are right, possessives don't work. I pinged the one who made the latest change to the cite journal template (which was major, and too hard for me to decipher, but he put up a health message), and a friend who knows templates in and out. Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Chuckstreet and Gerda Arendt: Have a look at pmid:1234, for example. Near the top you will see:

• Drug Metab Dispos. 1975 Nov-Dec;3(6):565-76.

That is how scholarly journals make their citations. The corresponding Wikipedia citation might be:

• {{cite journal |author=Nadeau D |title=Change in the kinetics of sulphacetamide tissue distribution |journal=Drug Metab. Dispos. |volume=3 |issue=6 |pages=565–76 |date=1975}}
• Nadeau D (1975). "Change in the kinetics of sulphacetamide tissue distribution". Drug Metab. Dispos. 3 (6): 565–76.

We should respect the common conventions that most of our readers will be used to, not make up our own (even if we feel ours would be better). --RexxS (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps we should, but I don't like the way the volume/number looks, for the same reason. "1975 Nov-Dec;3(6):565-76." looks very cluttered to me. In my view something like "1975 Nov-Dec, Vol. 3 No. 6, pp. 565-76." is a lot easier on the eyes and anyone would be able to understand and differentiate the different fields at a glance. Most WP pages I've seen do explicitly use "vol", "no", "p", and so on, and not the concise format without labels.

Most WP viewers are not "scholarly" necessarily, but still might be curious enough to read the cited article. I think it helps the general reader, whereas the cluttered version people without the technical knowledge of citations you just imparted would find confusing and indecipherable. It's one convention out of several; do we have to follow just this one on every page? Chuckstreet (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Chuckstreet that the cluttered professional look is not for everybody, and the inconsistency with the rendering of books is striking. Could we use "cite book" instead until this gets resolved? I tried to post on the template talk, finding that it is a redirect, so I was unsure if I landed at the right place. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Look, this is all well and good, but restoring the extra text just puts the page back into the maintenance category, which means some editor or bot will attempt to fix it. Again and again. If you object to the style of citations, take it up at the template level, do not subvert the function of templates with workarounds that make you happy.— TAnthony^Talk 04:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Specifically, please open a discussion at Template talk:Cite journal. I tend to agree that the "p" should be rendered even in journal citations, but consensus up to now seems to have decided otherwise.— TAnthony^Talk 04:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually no, I have not decided otherwise, we don't have a consensus yet. So far, we we're just trying to figure out if the lack of a p in cite journal was a bug: that's been answered and reasoned.

I agree with you that there should be a p (and also a vol and a no.), all for the reasons I stated in my last post above. That can be achieved with an alternate template (instead of cite, which I think there IS a standing consensus to use), or some alternate parameters and formatting available within cite. The id= parameter can be used to add extra material at the END of the cite, which is exactly where the vol/no/p gets displayed. That's a valid solution.

But the question is still out: do we want journal citations on the Clara Schumann page to have the concise esoteric look, or the explicitly readable look? Consistency is important I think, and the other cites like "book" display a readable view with p before a page number. Citation format is a matter of individual preference, and is different for each WP article; the preference is usually dictated by the person who originally wrote it. Since the present attempt (going for GA, which it now is (with those added p's in cite journal so they display)) is a major rewrite, we can change the original cite style (and we're doing so).

BTW, I don't see any maintenance bots making any changes; that doesn't seem to be an issue, but if this page IS coming up in a maintenance log, putting the page number in the "id" parameter should fix that. Or even putting the page in the sfn template as per numerous other examples on this page - there's another solution. Chuckstreet (talk) 05:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Update: I put the p or pp in the sfn's instead of the cite journals, similar to the p= we already have in many other sfn's for cite books. The p/pp displays fine now for journals. Go figure. Wonder why sfn will display it, when cite journal will not? Curious. Still wondering about vol and #. They displayed when we had them in <ref>, but not in cite journal; could "fix" those as well... Actually, there are still some <ref>s to convert to sfn's... to do... Yes I know, he who suggests it, etc. Chuckstreet (talk) 08:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Good idea to have the pages in the short citations! Thank you for the transfer to Harvard, - it was Reaper Eternal who suggested a unified style. I suggest we go to peer review in 2 days. I'm busy today, which also avoids edit conflicts ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Susanna Reich source

I see that the Susanna Reich (1999) source cites a specific page number. However, it's not clear where in the article that source is cited, as I couldn't find a shortened footnote anywhere. AmericanLemming (talk) 03:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. Chuckstreet (talk) 05:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

War of the Romantics

I don't see any activity on this article talk page for two months, so I thought I'd write here now and describe what I added to the article. Saw it was a bit lacking with some questioning statements without explanation in the section "Relation to composers", which I renamed "Relation to composers and controversy" (and someone else has now renamed War of the Romantics), about how Clara Schumann hated Liszt and Wagner and Bruckner, personally disliked them as well as their music it seems, but didn't say why.

I found the answers in the Wikipedia article War of the Romantics, which said Clara Schumann was basically the leader of this war against the newer composers, so I copied a sufficient amount of the information from that page to this one. I copied over the sources from that article too, though I think maybe they're too many, looks a bit cluttered with superscript numbers. Perhaps someone can weed it out, weedwacker you know. And maybe it's too much description anyway; possibly a briefer explanation and a link to the WOTR article if the reader wants to know more. Otherwise, enjoy!

Oh, I included stuff slightly biased toward Clara Schumann's side and not Liszt's side, even though I personally feel she doesn't deserve the deference, but I was nice to her because this is after all an article about HER. If anyone thinks it needs more balance here like the WOTR article has it, then feel free to rewrite.

In truth, Liszt took the high road and never personally attacked Clara or her co-conspirators like Brahms, nor denigrated their music, quite the opposite. The same cannot be said for the spiteful and annoying, backward-thinking Clara however (bitter she was after her famous husband's attempted suicide, institutionalization, and death). Liszt's supporters did the backbiting, including Wagner. And Brahms, for his part didn't really have his heart in such a war, he just wanted to be nice to Clara who he was in love with and valued her support of him, but he secretly liked the new music of Liszt and Wagner. It was really a one-woman war, and a public cat-fight between her and Liszt's daughter, Wagner's wife Cosima I didn't include because it wasn't in the WOTR article. I didn't add any new material. For reference, most of the material and more is in Alan Walker's book about Liszt's Weimar years. LisztianEndeavors (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)