Talk:Jean Sibelius/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Major improvements needed for the 150th anniversary

In connection with the 150th anniversary of Sibelius' birth on 8 December, I am trying to coordinate improvements to this article. I think we should try to aim for GA over the next few weeks, possibly going for FAC later. In my opinion, the article needs far better sourcing (at the moment it seems to rely mainly on one published biography), better coverage of his music and musical style, and more information on the concerts and events to be held for his anniversary. Antandrus, who has been a major contributor, has offered to help and I am trying to encourage others to help us along. I look forward to further suggestions here. A good start might be to compile a list of the main published biographies on which we can draw.--Ipigott (talk) 09:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Mäkelä, Tomi (2011). Jean Sibelius. Boydell & Brewer Ltd. ISBN 978-1-84383-688-9. - This recent work by the Finnish musicologist Tomi Mäkelä has been translated from the prize-winning German Poesie in der Luft. At first sight, it seems to contain a lot of useful information.--Ipigott (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

In the work I have done on expanding The Oceanides and The Wood Nymph I have relied heavily upon biographies by Tawaststjerna (1976 v. 1, 1986 v. 2, 1997 v.3; translation to English by Robert Layton) and Andrew Barnett (2007). Goss (2009) is also quite good, as is Layton (1965, but updated significantly in the 1990s) and Gray (1931). I'm not as keen on Johnson (1959), but that's just my opinion. Here's the list I've used:

• Barnett, Andrew (2007). Sibelius. New Haven: Yale University Press. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

• Gray, Cecil (1931). Sibelius. London: Oxford University Press. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

• Goss, Glenda Dawn (2009). Sibelius: A Composer's Life and the Awakening of Finland. London: University of Chicago Press. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

• Grimley, Daniel (2004). Grimley, Daniel (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Sibelius. London: Cambridge University Press. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

• Hurwitz, David (2007). Sibelius: The Orchestral Works, an Owner's Manual. Pompton Plains, New Jersey: Amadeus Press. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

• Johnson, Harold (1959). Jean Sibelius. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

• Layton, Robert (1965). Sibelius: The Masters Musicians Series. New York: Schirmer Books. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

• Rickards, Guy (1997). Jean Sibelius. London: Phaidon. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

• Ringbom, Nils-Eric (1954). Jean Sibelius: A Master and His Work. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

• Tawaststjerna, Erik (1986). Sibelius: Volume 2, 1904–1914. (Robert Layton, English translation). London: Faber and Faber. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

• Tawaststjerna, Erik (1997). Sibelius: Volume 3, 1914–1957. (Robert Layton, English translation). London: Faber and Faber. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

The Hurwitz and Rickards are more minor treatments, and the Ringbom and Gray are a bit out of date. I have never found Ekman's account too particularly helpful, and Tawaststjerna in particular has challenged a number of his facts. I haven't read the book by Mäkelä (it's far too expensive for my tastes!). Hope this helps. Really, everything that comes after Tawaststjerna builds upon his seminal work; Layton and Barnett both acknowledge their debt to his careful research. Sgvrfjs (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Blue Plaque

Just my opinion here, but I think this "blue plaque" photo looks really tacky. It would suit me fine if it disappeared completely, but if it ultimately remains in the article I think a substantial size reduction is in order. At the present time the article seems to be overpopulated with photos anyway. Anyone agree with me on this? --EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, no, I don't find it "tacky" at all. And a "substantial size reduction" would almost certainly render it useless clutter. I must say that I think all the images are useful and well-placed, including the one in which he bears an uncanny resemblance to Uncle Fester. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC) Although it would be much better if his 1909 residence in London was explained, however briefly, in the text?

The more I look at it I suppose it is fine. Uncle Fester, oh that's funny! I see the resemblance, too.--EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I kind of agree about the blue plague. Not really too relevant; seems odd to have a picture of this item and not one of Aino Sibelius, Ainola, Robert Kajanus, Martin Wegelius, Ferrucio Busoni, his grave, or the Sibelius Monument.

Sibelius in 1907

Also, what about leading with this photo. I just love it (and his expression); classic Sibelius...haha :) Sgvrfjs (talk) 00:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Getting started

Maybe we can get started by deciding on an ideal article structure and rough proportions. "Life", "Works" (or "Music"), "Reception", "Legacy", with appropriate subheadings? To my eye the section on his music is quite underdeveloped; I think it should be at least as long as the section on his life, if not longer, with subsections for the major composition types (symphonies, tone poems, concerto, stage, choral, solo vocal, chamber ...) Looking around at other composer articles that have attained FA status I see some where the Life section is considerably longer than the discussion of Works (e.g. Edward Elgar) and others where the reverse is the case (Carl Nielsen), so obviously we have some flexibility. There's a lot to write about Sibelius' music. Antandrus (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree with your suggestions. There are separate articles on some of S's compositions which need to be summarized in the main article. We also need an overall description of the characteristics of his musical style. I'll try to develop something on this soon. The current section on his style is not too bad but it needs far better sourcing and, if possible, a more concise assessment of what made his style so widely appreciated. Perhaps we could build on this: Barnett, Andrew (2007). Sibelius. Yale University Press. pp. 22–. ISBN 0-300-11159-2.?--Ipigott (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I've just found an interesting quote by David Burnett James: "It is Sibelius's insight into the cold ferocity and antagonistic violence of Nature which gives his music its unique sound and its specifically modern significance." See The Musical 'Voice' of Sibelius: the Dark Vision.--Ipigott (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Bernard Holland, commenting on the Sixth Symphony in the New York Times, writes: " The symphony, his next to last, bears Sibelius's marks: winds in close harmony, the lonely oboe solos, the omnipresent timpani strokes." See MUSIC REVIEW; Sibelius, Blunt and Finally Austere.--Ipigott (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the best way to start is for us to take attendance, see who's here and willing to contribute what, and then assign sections to an individual. Then, once everyone has finished their assignment, we can bring it all together and proof read and edit and make suggestions as a community? I've already offered to take a stab at the introduction, modeled on that of Carl Nielsen. As of now, I think there is some important information missing, and some information that is superfluous to the introduction (i.e., Masonic stuff). Sgvrfjs (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sgvrfjs: The introduction (or lead as Wikipedians call it) certainly needs substantial improvement. It would indeed be useful to draw on your work on the list of compositions at this stage. Nevertheless, in my experience, for GA and above the lead is expected to draw on all the essential facts in the article itslef and so it is usually one of the last items to be brushed up to standard. But interim improvements are always welcome as long as they are based on the body of the article. As for assigning sections to different individuals, my experience with Nielsen was that I had to do most of the basic work on all the sections myself. However in the case of Sibelius, it is obvious we need to put together a reasonable section on his music, broken down roughly into the kind of subsections you will find in the Nielsen article. Perhaps you would like to work on one or more of these. I would however suggest you make your additions as far as possible on the article itself rather than working in a sandbox over several days. It helps others to participate. For time being I am plowing through the history which I hope to complete (at least as an initial draft) over the next couple of weeks.--Ipigott (talk) 07:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

What I'm willing to do as of now

Hi, all. I'm thinking of where I can be instantly helpful, and I thought of two things. First, I think the introduction needs to be tighter (too many tiny paragraphs), and I'm happy to do it (for an example of how I write introductions, see The Oceanides; obviously the one for S should be longer, perhaps two or three paragraphs). Second, having worked A LOT on improving the orchestral sections of the list of compositions, I can immediately bring the section of SELECTED WORKS up to date. Right now, a few things are superfluous and they are not exactly the same as on the List of compositions by Jean Sibelius page. I suggest standardization. Having read a number of his biographies and such, I think I know pretty well what the 'major' contributions are.

A few other immediate suggestions: Freemasonry should NOT be it's own section; rather it should be under Life as a subsection, if that. Similarly, I would probably make NATURE a subsection under MUSICAL STYLE. Second, we need to find a image of S's signature, as Wiki has done for most other composers. Third, I really think the Carl Nielsen page is spectacular and that it should serve as our guide both in terms of content and sections. That's all I have for now. I'll hold off on the introduction fine-tuning until I hear from the community, but I can get to work straight away on the SELECTED WORKS. Sgvrfjs (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, on second thought, maybe it is best to eliminate the section on Selected Works, as most pages for other composers don't do this. Rather, they appear to develop subsections on the various forms the composer contributed to. I thus endorse the earlier suggestion to do this. Seems like Symphonies, Symphonic Poems, Incidental Music, Concerti, and Opera are the most important ones; maybe something on Songs, Piano, Chamber, too, if there's time; but these should obviously be less important than the orchestral ones. Sgvrfjs (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sgvrfjs: Thanks for all these useful suggestions and for your sandbox work on the lead. I have made a few changes to the lead in the main article on the basis of your rewrite but I think it is a bit premature to include everything at this stage, particularly comparisons with other composers as these have not been developed in the main article. What I would suggest is that you adapt (and perhaps enlarge on) some of your sandbox material in the (as yet unwritten) Music section (cf Musical style in the Nieslen article), adding all the necessary inline references). As you suggest, musical style should also refer to his interest in nature. See also may suggestions under Getting started (above). I don't know whether the quote about "winds in close harmony, the lonely oboe solos, the omnipresent timpani strokes" is a good description of S's music but something along these lines is needed.

As the article progresses, we can then pick out some of the more important items for the lead as we approach GA. BTW, I see you have been using your basic sandbox for everything you prepare. It is easy to create new sandboxes as you go along so that you can work on more than one item in different user articles at the same time. I have taken the liberty of copying your lead proposal into User:Sgvrfjs/Sibelius lead. I think you will find it easier to work on it there rather than mixing it with your development of the List of works, etc.

Thanks for your compliments on the Carl Nielsen page. It also draws on the biographies of other composers. I have been working slowly through the Sibelius article and was intending to use something similar to the Nielsen approach for the music section. I don't think we really need to develop an independent section on Selected works which can be included in the various subsections on Music. As in the Nielsen article, a link to the Sibelius list of works should be sufficient. I think there also needs to be a section on songs and choral music, even though his songs are virtually unknown outside Finland and Sweden. Chamber is obviously important, especially in relation to his earlier works. Perhaps for Sibelius, a subsection on Tone poems (maybe under Orchestral music) would also be helpful. The symphonies, particularly the way they progress down the line, require special attention as they are by far the most popular items for international concerts (and also in recordings). Maybe you have other suggestions here?

On Sibelius' vs Sibelius's, I prefer Sibelius's as that is the way I say it (Sibeliusses) -- but Sibelius' is also perfectly correct. As long as you keep to one form throughout a given article, it's fine. In the main article, we have been using Sibelius's. Hope I've covered everything you brought up. If not, let me know.--Ipigott (talk) 12:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

On Sibelius's signature, there's a reasonable sample here if one of the image experts like Adam Cuerden can remove it from the print.--Ipigott (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ipigott: All great points, Ipigott! I am in complete agreement with everything you have said and thank you for creating the extra sandbox for me. Let's see, I am happy to, in the coming weeks, work on the MUSIC section, as well as the SYMPHONIES, TONE POEMS, and INCIDENTAL MUSIC subsections in my free time. I have exams coming up, so my progress might be a bit slower over the next few weeks. I have no taste, or skill, at writing HISTORY of composer's childhoods and life, so I leave that happily and gratefully in your able hands. My only pet peeve is when sources portray S as some sort of hermit; in reality, he traveled to Germany, Austria, the UK, and Italy numerous times and had close friendships with Stenhammar, Busoni, and Bantock. He was also well aware of the experiments of Debussy and Schoenberg in his time. Anyway, if you want to let me have stab at these aforementioned sections/subsections (History excepted), then I'm happy to do so. Cheers! :) Sgvrfjs (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sgvrfjs: I really look forward to your collaboration. It's great to have someone on board who shows a real interest in the music. Maybe you can start with a short introduction on S's musical style and then create subsections as time permits. There's no rush. Just contribute when you feel you can devote a bit of time to it all.--Ipigott (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Image review by Adam Cuerden

File:Jean sibelius.jpg

Suggestion: Replace with image created from TIFF at http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ggb2006014279/ - much better documented. Evidence from the pre-extant page will go to prove publication, and Finland's liberal copyright laws will deal with any lingering issues. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

There is also a scan of the original photo by Daniel Nyblin here but the large scan requires payment. --Mlang.Finn (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Sibélius as a schoolboy.jpg

This image is on an embossed carte de visite mount. "Unknown" really won't cut it for author. Can't find larger. While carte de visite is usually a good sign of publication, this is a schoolboy photo, and, unlike the Nielsen image where the carte de visite image had proof it was being handed out right on it, this one's pristine. Finland's copyright law helps us, but I'd like to have some evidence of distribution to make the American copyright status more obvious.

Suggestion: Document.

File:Sibélius_1889-90.gif

No source, no author. We can possibly improve the image:

A larger version is available at:

http://www.seattleweekly.com/csp/mediapool/sites/dt.common.streams.StreamServer.cls?STREAMOID=sbdiqvoyB1_5INflnwv6EM$daE2N3K4ZzOUsqbU5sYtc54w8p0KdCMPyWlS2GTwLWCsjLu883Ygn4B49Lvm9bPe2QeMKQdVeZmXF$9l$4uCZ8QDXhaHEp3rvzXRJFdy0KqPHLoMevcTLo3h8xh70Y6N_U_CryOsw6FTOdKL_jpQ-&CONTENTTYPE=image/jpeg

Which is found at http://www.seattleweekly.com/2011-11-09/arts/ear-supply-the-sap-is-rising/ by clicking on the smaller image.

An author would be useful, as well as evidence of publication. Could upload the bigger JPEG, but do we have a name for the photographer/proof of early publication?

Again, Finland's copyright law helps, but I suspect we'll want better at FAC.

Suggestion: Do not use

According to the biography by Erkki Salmenhaara (p. 30), this photograph comes from the 1880s and is by anonymous. There is a page-wide reproduction, showing more than the Seattle Weekly version. Over 120 years old, this photograph is certainly free of copyright. --Mlang.Finn (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Jean Sibelius 15 Gloucester Walk blue plaque.jpg

Fine.

File:Sibelius 1891.jpg

Partially documented, but no photographer, and no evidence of publication. Finland's copyright law helps but it's likely to be challenged at FAC.

Suggestion: Document/Don't use

This is, again, by Daniel Nyblin from 1891. Partial scan here. I see it as a publicity photograph with no copyright issues. --Mlang.Finn (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Jean Sibelius 1923.gif

Same issues as everything else.

This appears to be from a series by Henry B. Goodwin: another one scanned here. I see no copyright issues. --Mlang.Finn (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/cph.3c22946/

Good image. Despite the LoC giving a range of 1890-1920, it also says it comes from "Illus. from: Die Musik, 1902-1903, supplement." - so c. 1902 would be more accurate. Could replace one of the images we're losing. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: Thanks Adam for going into this so quickly and in so much detail. I hadn't really examined the images yet as there is still an enormous amount of work to do on the text of the article. But it's great to have all this feedback now. It will allow us to research more suitable illustrations over the next few weeks.--Ipigott (talk) 17:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I rather figured so. I think I could get you that first, LoC image fairly soon, which should be a start. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the LoC image would certainly be more acceptable for copyright. With your enhancements, it should be good. When I get back to Denmark in early July I'll also research some of the early biographies and encyclopedia articles which often demonstrate early publication of the photographs. The Finnish Museum of Photography have apparently exhibited a range of photos of Sibelius at Helsinki Airport and at other key locations but they are not posting info on sources, etc. I'll look into it. See also this.--Ipigott (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

See for example one, two, three, four, five good portraits not to mention other family pictures and photographs of other people mentioned in the JS article. Don't know whether the Flickr "No known copyright restrictions" is valid for Wikimedia Commons? See also further explanations here which make specific mention of Sibelius.--Ipigott (talk) 20:01, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. That's a good question. It's a museum saying it - an excellent sign. It would be nice to show it was published - I've linked the Finnish copyright template a few times; it would be good to show Finnish publication before 1966, just to get the URAA that bit firmer. I'd imagine that won't be too hard. The photos are good, though I think it's possible to over-illustrate the man himself: I'd like to mix in some illustrations for his works and life. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

All the photos linked here are regarded as artwork. They will be copyright free after 70 years of the author's death. --Gwafton (talk) 23:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to disagree about them counting as works of art: A lot of them are very basic poses. See commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Finland - it takes a fair bit to count as works of art under Finnish law. One or two might, but certainly not all. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The most relevant para. in the Finnish copyright law for these photographs appears to be (49a) "The right to a photographic picture shall be in force until 50 years have elapsed from the end of the year during which the photographic picture was made." This applies even to artwork photographs. But maybe evidence of publication is required for the US?--Ipigott (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that some evidence of publication wouldn't hurt for FA. From the descriptions, it looks rather like they were published in one of Santeri Levas's books, probably either Jean Sibelius and His Home or the two-volume biography. (On which subject: File:Päivän postia selvitellään. Valokuvaaja, Sibeliuksen yksityissihteeri, Santeri Levas, Jean Sibelius Ainolan kirjastossa, 1940-1945, (d2005 167 6 97) Suomen valokuvataiteen museo.jpg would be great if we could clear it)

Note: It is entirely possible that Santeri Levas donated his materials (and their rights) to the Finnish Museum of Photography. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. I think we need to find a picture of Sibelius' signature. Also, maybe we could find this image, since the scuplture is so beautiful. https://www.flickr.com/photos/archer10/4039769499 Sgvrfjs (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The original for this is, again, by Daniel Nyblin, ca. 1900. A large scan (1535 × 2469) requires payment. This is free of copyright. --Mlang.Finn (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Citation

I recommend changing the citation of Burnett James's name in the article. Although he himself confused the matter by sometimes using the by-line "David Burnett James", which could be mistaken for a double-barrelled surname, it is actually a double-barrelled given name: he was "Mr James", and is so referred to in The Musical Times and Music & Letters. (I know the designer of the cover of his Sibelius book fell into the trap and even gave him a hyphen, but it was a mistake.) Tim riley talk 13:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Sounds very sensible. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Done.--Ipigott (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 15:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Starting first read-through of current version. More soonest. Tim riley talk 15:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm slowly, and with much enjoyment, working my way through the text. Comments to follow a.s.a.p. – tomorrow, I hope. Meanwhile you may like to consider the matter of WP:OVERLINK: we don't normally put in blue links to countries and capital cities. I suggest you lose the links to Finland, Helsinki London and Vienna. Still on links, despite the general guidance of the MoS, there seems to have grown up an informal acceptance by regular FAC reviewers (who will be seeing the article in due course, I trust) that in a Life and Works article it is OK to link once per subject from the Life section and once from the Works section. I don't quarrel with that, but I think you ought to limit yourself to just one link from Life and one from Works. At present we have duplicate links within the Life section to Kalevala (linked twice in one paragraph), Adolf Paul, the Fourth Symphony, Richard Strauss, Luonnatar, The Oceanides, Richard Strauss, University of Helsinki, Turku, The Seventh Symphony, The Tempest, and Richard Strauss again; in the Works sections we have duplicate links for sonata form, Richard Strauss, the Second, Fourth, Sixth and Seventh Symphonies and Tapiola. There may be others I haven't spotted. – Tim riley talk 18:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim, for taking this on and coming up so quickly with useful suggestions. I've been tied up this evening but will try to make an early start tomorrow.--Ipigott (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I've gone through the mentioned wls and removed some. Please check, whether that is enough. In some cases I have left one link per lead or level two section. --Mirokado (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that. It looks good to me. No more needed on this point, I think. Tim riley talk 21:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

First batch of comments on the text

The prose is fine for GA, certainly meeting criterion 1, and in truth some of my comments are made more with a future FA candidacy in mind than for the review I'm conducting here. Still, I hope they are helpful for present purposes. I shall probably need two or three goes at this substantial and important text. First lot, down to the end of Move to Ainola:

• Lead
  • [I prefer to leave reviewing this till last, after I have absorbed the main text. More in due course.]
• Early years
  • "Not surprisingly, he later turned to the violin" – not keen on the editorialising "not surprisingly"

Done--Ipigott (talk) 16:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• • Note 14 – citations come after, not before, closing brackets

Done--Ipigott (talk) 16:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• • "movements of the Mendelssohn's Violin Concerto" – I think you should lose either the definite article or the apostrophe ess.

Done--Ipigott (talk) 16:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• Studies and early career
  • "One of his teachers was the founder Martin Wegelius" – unless Wegelius was one of several founders he needs a comma before his name.

Done.

• • "an art which until then he had learnt himself" – this needs a bit of massaging, I think: the "he" is of course Sibelius, but that isn't unambiguous. I'd be inclined to redraw on the lines of "It was he who gave the self-taught Sibelius his first formal lessons in composition".

Done.

• • "conductor to be Armas Järnefelt" – I think perhaps a hyphen or two would help the reader here

Done.

• • "with the Hungarian Karl Goldmark and the Austrian Robert Fuchs" – is the nationality of these two musicians relevant? Fine, if so, but it isn't obvious.

I thought it was interesting that he studied under a Hungarian. I simply included "Austrian" for balance as it was in Vienna. I have reversed the order although this might not be chronologically correct.--Ipigott (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• • "Anton Bruckner whom, for a time, he regarded as 'the greatest living composer', although he continued to show interest in Beethoven and Wagner". – this reads rather as though Beethoven and Wagner were still alive at the time.

Reworded

• • "restored to good health when a "stone" was removed" – presumably a gallstone rather than 14lbs? Could be clarified if possible.

Done

• • "Vienna and Berlin (1889–1891), in 1900–1901" – the MoS recommends the date range style "Vienna and Berlin (1889–91), in 1900–01"

Done--Ipigott (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• Marriage and family
  • The reference to Ainola's construction in 1903 and the third para of this section take the narrative noticeably out of chronological order, and I'd be inclined to move them both forward to their relevant dates within the text.

I've tried to resequence this. Might require further tweaking.--Ipigott (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Think it's OK now. Done.

• Slow rise to fame
  • "Student Association Gala" – capitals really wanted?

Done

• • "Sibelius worked on a grand opera" – careful with that term! I have been duffed up by opera experts for using the expression loosely, and if the planned work was Wagnerian it certainly wasn't a grand opera in the technical sense of the term.

Done

• • "at Kajanus' conducting school" – you should, I think, be consistent in possessives for people whose names end in s. You favour Sibelius's rather than Sibelius' (applause from me for that) but we have no ess-apostrophe-ess here.

My mistake. Done

• • "The critics were highly favourable, even those in Berlin" – have I missed something earlier suggesting that Berlin critics might not be well disposed to Sibelius, or were pickier than those elsewhere?

They had not been kind to him on earlier occasions but these are not included. I've reworded. Done

• • "It was finally completed" – does the adverb add anything useful?

I wanted to emphasize how long it took but it really doesn't add anything. Done

• Move to Ainola
  • "pleading him to return" – can plead be used transitively? "imploring" or "urging" might be preferable here, perhaps.

Done

It is a pleasure and a privilege to review this article. More soonest. Tim riley talk 14:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Second lot, to the end of the Life part.

• Ups and downs
  • "Its reception in Moscow was however rather more positive – I don't think the however adds anything here, but if you keep it you should put a comma on either side of it.

Have deleted "however"

• More pleasant times
  • "he conducted … while a meeting with Claude Debussy produced further support" – perhaps one of those cases in which "while" to mean "and" is better avoided, giving as it does here an inappropriate suggestion of simultaneity.

Reworded

• • "at the Music Festival in Gloucester" – if you want to anonymise the Three Choirs Festival – I'm not sure why – I don't think you should capitalise "Music Festival".

Now in lower case. Not sure "Three Choirs" was the official name then.

• • "he was particularly drawn to Arnold Schönberg" – personally or musically? Do we know what Schoenberg thought of Sibelius?

Will have to look into this. It was of course musically.

Please don't feel bullied by me on this! As I say, my remarks on this page are mostly ultra vires so far as the GA criteria are concerned, and you can agree or not as you wish. Just looking ahead to PR and FAC, in truth. Tim riley talk 18:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• • "First composed in D flat major, Sibelius undertook substantive revisions" – the grammar is a bit rocky here: Sibelius wasn't first composed in D flat.

Done

• • "Henry Krehbiel considered The Oceanides to have been … while The New York Times considered Sibelius's music to have been" – the repetition of "considered to have been" is a bit infelicitous, perhaps, and the first of them should surely be "considered to be".

Done

• Revived fortunes
  • "receiving 'unique' ovations – the import of the quotation marks is not apparent: who called them unique, and in what sense were they unique?

Done

• • Third paragraph: was he conducting these British concerts or merely present at them?

Done

• • "highly praised by Evert Katila who qualified it as 'pure idyll'" – the quotation from Katila could do with a citation.

Will look into this.

• • "He then proceeded to Gothenburg where he enjoyed an ecstatic reception despite over-indulging in food and drink" – this seems something of a non sequitur. Would concert audiences have cared about his eating and drinking habits?

Done

• Final years and death
  • There are two "buts" in the first sentence; you might perhaps make the second one a semicolon.

Done

• • "he considered Richard Strauss, Béla Bartók and Dmitri Shostakovich the most talented composers of the younger generations" – this reads a touch oddly, as Richard Strauss was older than Sibelius.

Reworded

• • "In the 1950s he actively promoted" – can one promote inactively?

Done

• • "Erik Tawaststjerna also relates an endearing anecdote" – "endearing" is a shade editorial, possibly?

Done

• • "At the time of his death, his Fifth Symphony, conducted by Sir Malcolm Sargent, was being broadcast from Helsinki" – I have a reproduction before me of the celebrated Daily Mail headline:

SIBELIUS DIES

As he hears Sargent conducting

his Fifth Symphony

From Daily Mail Correspondent, Helsinki, Friday

which I mention not so much for what Fritz Spiegl called "a dim innuendo" against Sir Malcolm as to draw your attention to the fact – if fact it be – that the composer heard the broadcast (some of it, at any rate); at present the article doesn't say so.

I am aware of this news item but other sources simply say that the concert was being broadcast at the time of his death. I thought it was preferable not to be over assertive.

• "Aino lived there for the next twelve years" – your policy for showing numbers as words or digits isn't immediately obvious. Many writers go up to ten in words and from 11 onwards in figures. Here I notice "twelve" but "16 swans" earlier. I just mention the point, for your consideration.

Done

More soonest. Tim riley talk 10:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Last lot

• Music
  • I think you have got exactly the right line and length for this section. A brisk overview, and a neat encapsulation of the major works. In my view this is ideal for the visitor to the page, who can, if he or she chooses, follow any links for more detailed info on any work, or can get a good summary of the whole oeuvre here.
    • Thanks for the assessment but unfortunately some of the articles on the individual pieces, especially the symphonies, leave a lot to be desired.
      • Quite so, but they are not our present concern. One thing at a time! Tim riley talk 16:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Introductory section
  • Fourth para – I don't demur at any of this para, but I'd like to check that ref 77 covers every statement in it.
  • Sheer curiosity: do we know in what language Sibelius and Mahler talked to each other?

I imagine they spoke German. Sibelius was quite fluent in German although not always grammatically correct. Most Swedish-speakers of his day also spoke German.

• Symphonies
  • Last para – rather late in the day to link the generic term "symphony", perhaps?

Done

• Tone poems
  • I think a citation at the end of the first sentence would be no bad thing, though I admit it's hardly a controversial statement. I boggle a bit at "significant" (here and twice above and once below): what does the music signify? I think a more demure "important" might be safer.

Done

• • "praised upon its premiere as "the finest evocation of the sea ... ever ... produced in music"" – you should, perhaps, attribute this statement inline.

Done

• • "the Scottish composer and biographer Cecil Gray" – I really do question whether it is relevant that Gray was Scottish.

Done

• Other important works
  • "is better described as a suite of five symphonic movements resembling tone poems" – says who?

Done

• Other reactions
  • The opening sentence has clearly been transplanted, out of context, from an earlier draft. I think you could simply blitz it: the para makes perfect sense without it.

Done

• • We could do with citations for the first and second paras, and (apart from the Cardus quote) the third, too.
  • If Burnett James gave the date of the Cardus quote as 1958 he was out by two decades: see "The Hallé Concerts", The Manchester Guardian, 21 October 1938, p. 13: Cardus added, "For my part, I confess some amusement at the idea of Sibelius as an authority on cold water for the purposes of liquid refreshment;"

Have deleted this section as it was from an older version of the article and was not referenced.

• Reception
  • "Furthermore, Tapiola is prominently echoed in both Bax's Sixth Symphony and Moeran's Symphony in G Minor" – citation, please.

Done

• • "Eugene Ormandy and to a lesser extent, his predecessor Leopold Stokowski" – his predecessor at Philadelphia, presumably? We should say so.

Done

• • "Later in life he was championed by critic Olin Downes" – two points here: first the "he" logically means Ormandy here, and secondly there is a false title for Olin Downes, who wrote for the American paper that was and is a bulwark of resistance to that regrettable construction.

Done

• • "Perhaps one reason Sibelius has attracted… " – I rather doubt that ref 70 covers the opinion voiced in the first part of this para. A citation would be welcome there.

Done

• • "American avant-garde composer Morton Feldman" – another easily remediable false title.

Done

• • Last two paras are free of citations.

One deleted. Other sourced.

• Contemporary assessments
  • May I suggest that this one-sentence section should be subsumed in the preceding section?
• References
  • Ref 60: Upper and lower case, please (MoS) however it appeared in the original.

Done

That's all from me. I think I must leave cutting the tape till the few points, above, about occasional lack of citations are addressed, but otherwise I see this not only as an imminent GA but a potential FA. – Tim riley talk 21:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Ahem! I forgot to review the lead – I'm so sorry! I'd add just two points to my earlier comments: "the Silence of Järvenpää" mysteriously becomes "the Silence of Ainola" in the main text: best to be consistent. And are you sure the asteroid belongs in the lead? You don't mention it in the main text, where, in my view, it belongs. WP:LEAD stipulates that the lead shouldn't contain anything that isn't in the main text. Tim riley talk 09:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

These have both been fixed too.--Ipigott (talk) 08:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• I would like to thank you, Tim, for coming up with all these constructive comments. It's been a useful review. While the article could still be improved for FA along the lines of Carl Nielsen, I think it gives a good overview of Sibelius and his works. If you have any specific comments for further work, please let me know.--Ipigott (talk) 08:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I think there's a closing page number omitted in ref 114. Be that as it may, the article is clearly of GA standard. I can't think of any particular suggestions for further improvement before going to FAC, but other editors may have plenty of helpful input if your next stop is Peer Review, which I strongly recommend. Meanwhile, I have considerable pleasure in promoting the article to GA. – Tim riley talk 09:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The incomplete page ranges come from Google books ref generator (for example). The url points to the mentioned page, the user needs to edit the page parameter by hand to refer correctly to the single page or to a range. I have updated the references to refer just to that page, we can extend the range if necessary. Many thanks from me to, Tim, for this careful review. --Mirokado (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Suggestion

Great to see someone improving this article, and best of luck with the GA! I have a minor suggestion regarding this paragraph:

From the beginning of 1917, Sibelius started drinking again, triggering arguments with Aino. Their relationship improved with the excitement resulting from the start of the Russian revolution. By the end of the year, Sibelius had composed his Jäger March. The piece proved particularly popular after the Finnish parliament accepted the Senate's declaration of independence from Russia in December 1917. The Jäger March, first played on 19 January 1918, delighted the Helsinki elite for a short time until the Finnish Red Guard, supporting the Russians, seized power in Helsinki on 28 January. When the Red Guards had been defeated by Gustaf Mannerheim, Sibelius conducted the march in Helsinki, reinforcing his image as a national hero.

I think it would be good to provide a link to the Finnish Civil War as readers with very little knowledge of Finnish history might have trouble with this otherwise. While the Finnish Red Guard certainly supported the Russians and received support from them, to my knowledge they were separate entities; I think this paragraph might give the impression that the Finnish Reds were simply a Finnish sector of the Bolsheviks or even a foreign presence, especially when the paragraph ends with this line "When the Red Guards had been defeated by Gustaf Mannerheim, Sibelius conducted the march in Helsinki, reinforcing his image as a national hero". The thing is, the majority of the Finnish Red Guard were Finnish themselves and hence even after defeat, they did not vanish to the Soviet Union. The civil war created a very divided nation, and hence I think it might be appropriate to tweak this section a bit — those who had supported the Reds (a significant number of Finnish people) definitely would not have seen Sibelius as a national hero, so it might be good to be more specific. I'm sure you know all of this already, but yeah — it's just a suggestion :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

I squeezed the link in,- more elegance will be needed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, if you need help with Finnish/Swedish translations etc., please don't hesitate to contact me (I'm under the impression that the article currently has no Finnish/Swedish contributors?) :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Please go right to Jäger March, - I added two sources which might shed more light on the composition in the context of the politics. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Father's death

It says Sibelius' father died from typhus. Actually, he he died from typhoid. (Lavantauti = typhoid fever in Finnish.)--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Fifth Symphony

I personally think the lede should give special mention to Sibelius's enormously well-known Fifth Symphony (rather than, or in addition to, lumping all of his symphonies together). To me it's equally as well-known as, or rather more well known than (and more performed and more broadcast), his most iconic work Finlandia. In fact, when many or most people hear the Fifth Symphony on the radio, they think it is Finlandia, because it's so familiar, and has such iconic Finnish motifs -- and they keep waiting for the "song" part to come along (which of course never does, so people finally realize it isn't Finlandia). Softlavender (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Other works

It would be helpful if the article would mention all works from the navbox

If not all then at least his mature string quartet Voces intimae, and Snöfrid. More articles to come, to fill the red links, 7 as I write this, - any help welcome. The recipe is easy: copy a short one such as Scaramouche, just replace the names, dates and references, and you have a decent stub with two refs, the score and the recordings from AllMusic, - to be expanded of course. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I made this a separate thread, because my thread above re: the Fifth Symphony is only about the lede (specifically the second paragraph), not the entire article. Softlavender (talk) 09:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Images

I found it useful to show Sibelius at different age for compositions at different times. Note to self:

• 1889 Islossningen
  1889 Islossningen
• 
  1891 Karelia
• 
  1892 Jungfrun
• 
  1904 Symphony No. 2
• 
  1904 Violin Concerto
• 
  1913 The Oceanides
• 
  1918 Symphony No. 5
• 
  1920
• 
  1923 Symphony No. 6
• 
  1939 Symphony No. 8
• 
  1940 Andante Festivo

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Jean Sibelius/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

==Composers Project Assessment of Jean Sibelius: 2009-01-7== This is an assessment of article Jean Sibelius by a member of the Composers project, according to its assessment criteria. This review was done by Magicpiano. If an article is well-cited, the reviewer is assuming that the article reflects reasonably current scholarship, and deficiencies in the historical record that are documented in a particular area will be appropriately scored. If insufficient inline citations are present, the reviewer will assume that deficiencies in that area may be cured, and that area may be scored down. Adherence to overall Wikipedia standards (WP:MOS, WP:WIAGA, WP:WIAFA) are the reviewer's opinion, and are not a substitute for the Wikipedia's processes for awarding Good Article or Featured Article status. ===Origins/family background/studies=== Does the article reflect what is known about the composer's background and childhood? If s/he received musical training as a child, who from, is the experience and nature of the early teachers' influences described? ok ===Early career=== Does the article indicate when s/he started composing, discuss early style, success/failure? Are other pedagogic and personal influences from this time on his/her music discussed? Good personal; professional and compositional history poor ===Mature career=== Does the article discuss his/her adult life and composition history? Are other pedagogic and personal influences from this time on his/her music discussed? Good personal; professional and compositional history poor ===List(s) of works=== Are lists of the composer's works in WP, linked from this article? If there are special catalogs (e.g. Köchel for Mozart, Hoboken for Haydn), are they used? If the composer has written more than 20-30 works, any exhaustive listing should be placed in a separate article. list is extensive but claims to be incomplete ===Critical appreciation=== Does the article discuss his/her style, reception by critics and the public (both during his/her life, and over time)? good ===Illustrations and sound clips=== Does the article contain images of its subject, birthplace, gravesite or other memorials, important residences, manuscript pages, museums, etc? Does it contain samples of the composer's work (as composer and/or performer, if appropriate)? (Note that since many 20th-century works are copyrighted, it may not be possible to acquire more than brief fair use samples of those works, but efforts should be made to do so.) If an article is of high enough quality, do its images and media comply with image use policy and non-free content policy? (Adherence to these is needed for Good Article or Featured Article consideration, and is apparently a common reason for nominations being quick-failed.) ok ===References, sources and bibliography=== Does the article contain a suitable number of references? Does it contain sufficient inline citations? (For an article to pass Good Article nomination, every paragraph possibly excepting those in the lead, and every direct quotation, should have at least one footnote.) If appropriate, does it include Further Reading or Bibliography beyond the cited references? Article is referenced; some inline cites; some uncited quotes. ===Structure and compliance with WP:MOS=== Does the article comply with Wikipedia style and layout guidelines, especially WP:MOS, WP:LEAD, WP:LAYOUT, and possibly WP:SIZE? (Article length is not generally significant, although Featured Articles Candidates may be questioned for excessive length.) ok ===Things that may be necessary to pass a Good Article review=== Article requires more inline citations (WP:CITE) ===Summary=== This is actually a relatively nice article about a composer I happen to like; but it is flawed. The biggest flaw is that I have no idea how Sibelius made a living. I know about his personal life; I know roughly when some of his works were written (although I think the chronological bio should give more of that too). I liked the section on his music and critical appreciation. The works list (in the separate article) is claimed to be incomplete; it ought to be completed. The article's main structural defect is that it should have more inline citations; at least one quotation is not cited (most are). The media section needs to be reformatted. Article is B-class; some work needed to improve it. Magic♪piano 04:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 04:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 15:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Picture caption

Sibelius celebrating? It looks more like a group of people in the grip of terminal depression who have engaged an axe murderer to put them out out of their misery rather than just jumping off a cliff. How about using ironic quotes (Sibelius 'celebrating')? To my mind the finished painting [[File:Gallen Kallela Symposion.jpg]] is a much better picture than the cartoon, although any sense of joy is similarly conspicuous by its absence. A number of other points:

1. The use of {{née}} in née Borg makes it seem as if my graphics card is about to fail: née is a perfectly good loanword like attaché; for those unfamiliar with the development of the English language, you could use née, but that might look like an affectation.
2. Kullervo, Op. 7, is scored for orchestra, mezzo-soprano, baritone and men's chorus. Attempting to describe this wandering and ill-focused beast of a piece ('choral symphony' etc.) is probably unhelpful in a general article about Sibelius. "Even less successful were three more performances of Kullervo in March which one critic found was incomprehensible and lacking in vitality." Is there a source for this well-founded and accurate statement? How about this, sourced from the Kullervo article: "Kullervo is at the same time a masterpiece and a baggy monster of a work"..
3. Re infoboxen: a plague on both your houses! :>MinorProphet (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Did someone mention axe murderer?? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Oeuvre

I think it is the "mot juste" for the overall work of a composer. It was used in the second para of the lead "The core of his oeuvre is his set of seven symphonies..." but was changed by Spacecowboy420 to "works" (which now appears twice in the same sentence). I tried to restore the term but was reverted. If other editors believe "works" is a better choice, then the first or first two sentences of the paragraph will need to be rewritten. Any views?--Ipigott (talk) 11:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted myself, simplification is no excuse for ugly English. The article was stable before I changed it, so I would prefer it to remain stable. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

How would people feel if I linked the word oeuvre to the relevant wikipedia page? That would normally be an easy choice for a term that isn't understood by everyone, however in this case it is complicated by the fact that the ouevre link, goes to a redirect page and ends up on the "work of art" article. Perhaps a better link would be to the disambiguation page ? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oeuvre_(disambiguation) - does anyone have a preference, because while I don't want to disrupt a stable article, I am of the opinion that a reasonably large proportion of readers are unfamiliar with the word oeuvre. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

A link seems reasonable to me (as oeuvre is the most precise term, without exact synonym). What is current policy on linking to Wiktionary, e.g. the second definition here? Antandrus (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the real solution here would be to create a new Wikipedia article on "oeuvre" which in my opinion is not equivalent to "work of art" in modern English usage. As explained in the Work of art article, "The term oeuvre is used to describe the complete body of work completed by an artist throughout a career." This should form the basis of a separate article.--Ipigott (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The redirect does not give an accurate explanation of the meaning, although I'm not sure if there would be enough content to warrant an article. One line on the work of art article, is not something easily linked to and the mention of oeuvre could easily be overlooked. A link to wikitionary also seems unsuitable, as the description there is rather bare. I'm starting to feel that the best option would be to expand on the work of art article, with a separate section devoted to the term oeuvre that has more content, is easily linked to and is less likely to be overlooked. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)