Talk:Julius Harrison/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Syek88 (talk · contribs) 20:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very happy to review this article although it may take me as long as a week. I have now read the article twice and have only one major comment: that the article does not cite Geoffrey Self's biography other than as "further reading". The article does not draw from what must be by far the most in-depth source ever written about Julius Harrison. That explains the article's brevity and the fact that it largely walks the reader through biographical details (appointments, compositions, etc) without colour and depth. That colour and depth would no doubt need to come from sources such as Self's biography.

Having said all of that, nowhere in the Good Article Criteria does this seem to be relevant. The article needs to be verifiable (Criterion 2) and broad (Criterion 3). It does not need be a 'thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature' (compare Featured Article Criterion 1c). For that reason I would not fail the article on this ground and I am likely to have only minor comments from here. I felt I should put the above on the record in case anyone later questions why the article passed. Syek88 (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your valued comments, Syek88. I unfortunately do not have access to Self, that is why it is mentioned only as further reading and not used expand or to source any content. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another contributor to the article has now added information from Self and it is now cited as a source. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: The info that Tim Riley added cited to Self is not actually from the biography book, but from the article on Harrison in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians: [1]. -- Softlavender (talk) 11:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if some of these comments appear to be pernickety:

"also known for his conducting of operatic works" - at first I thought this might be too narrow, given that he also conducted non-operatic works, but the published materials uniformly make the same kind of statement. Clearly the consensus is that operatic conducting stood out from his orchestral conducting. Done
"founder member" - "founding member"? British English (Collins Dictionary)
"He was the eldest in the family of four sons and three daughters" - this sentence would make more sense without "in the family": it would be shorter and there could be no suggestion that he was older than his own parents. Also, a comma after Harrison might help. Done
I suggest linking "Dame school". Many international readers will not know what one is. Done
"In Worcestershire, at the age of 16" - the two introductory words "In Worcestershire" appear superfluous. The preceding paragraph was set in that county and he hasn't yet moved anywhere. Done
What are "Cambridge local examinations"? Probably among the most important school exams in the UK and now also in Europe. Linked. Done
Did he write the libretto for Cleopatra? Assuming the answer is no, it might be good to say so to avoid any suggestion that the Times was criticising him. The libretto was written by Gerald Cumberland. There is an article on Cumberland in the fr.Wiki which I will shortly translate. Done
"Harrison, together with Pitt and Eugene Goossens, joined him as assistant conductors." - The commas and the plural clash. Perhaps, more simply: "Harrison, Pitt and Eugene Goossens joined him as assistant conductors." Done
"Although obliged to earn a living by conducting to the detriment of his composing" - This unduly repeats a sentence from earlier in the article. The same idea can and should be expressed twice - readers rarely read from top to bottom - but the use of almost exactly the same words is jarring. Done
Early in the article it is "Ballade for Strings" and later it is "Ballade for string orchestra". It's known as both.

Kudpung's comments in bold. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Kudpung and Softlavender. I am happy with the responses and changes and will close the review as successful. I note as an aside that the Self biography also appears to be available from many public libraries. Syek88 (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A review/overview of the Self biography

There is a review and overview of the Self biography here: [2]. I hope that helps. We can cull from it, cite it, link to it. Softlavender (talk) 10:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if anyone really wants to obtain the book itself, it can be very pricey but I've found it for around $50 (shipping included), on BookFinder.com: [3]. Click the link that says "change shipping destination/currency" to find the exact correct parameters for your location. Softlavender (talk) 11:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]