Jump to content

Talk:Music for a Time of War/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Reminders

  • which works are italicized and which are designated with quotation marks?
  • once established, be consistent throughout article
  • track listing displayed correctly?
  • single reception section, or separate sections for program and album?

--Another Believer (Talk) 23:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Peer review

Music for a Time of War

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have been working on this article for about one month. I know I have just a bit more work to put into it (remaining sources to incorporate into the article are posted on the talk page). However, I am at a point where I could really use a second pair of eyes, or more! My goal for this article is FA status. A copy edit would be great. Also just thoughts on general flow of the article, amount of detail, etc. Any feedback would be great before I finish my work on the article prior to GAN. Thank you. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

 Doing... (There may be a little wait, but I will get to it). Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

No worries. Take your time. I appreciate the feedback. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Some opening comments to get the review started:

Lead
  • "debut" closely followed by "debuted", twice. For smooth prose I recommend finding an alternative verb.
  • Rather than "in May", I suggest you give the exact date of the first performance. To what does "both performances" refer?
  • Likewise, "the following weekend" is imprecise and should be dated. This sentence is ambiguous; does "repeating the program at the inaugural Spring for Music Festival" refer to the Carnegie Hall performance itself, or to a further performance?
  • As a general point, try to avoid giving too much detail in the lead For example, the detail "recorded in Super Audio CD format" is unnecessary at this stage; likewise it is unnecessary to list the recording's various awards here. The lead should provide a broad summary of the whole of the article, which I don't think it does at present.
  • "debuting" again
Program
  • My first thought is that the four images would look much tidier if they were incorporated into a square, thus. I don't know how to do this easily, but I know an editor who does, and if you wish I'll raise the matter with him. The lead presently lacks an image; why not use this, there.
  • Again on a point of layout, it looks very untidy having a quotebox and a blockquote next to each other, in a part of the text that is already affected by the image. I'd reconsider the positioning of the quotebox, whatever you decide to do with the four-part image.
  • Longwinded wording: "The Oregon Symphony first performed the work in January 1974 with Lawrence Leighton Smith conducting; until Music for a Time of War the Symphony had most recently performed the composition in January 2007 with Kalmar conducting." I'd abbreviate: "The Oregon Symphony had first performed the work in January 1974, under Lawrence Leighton Smith, and had played it under Kalmar in January 2007".
  • Insert "which is" before "approximately"
  • "Kalmar's program includes a solo vocal performance by baritone Sanford Sylvan..." Misleading - sounds as though the baritone part is not normally included. Suggest: "In Kalmar's program the baritone soloist is Sanford Sylvan..." etc
  • "The program follows with..." → "The program continues with..."
  • "these performances marked the ensemble's most recent prior to Music for a Time of War. First, what does "these performances" refer to? Secondly, an orchestra is not the same as an "ensemble". Finally I'm not sure that this information is significant enough for inclusion. If they hadn't played it for 40 years, well, perhaps. But 4 years?
    • The Feb. 26–28, 2005 performances, as indicated by the source. I changed "in February 2005" to "on February 26–28, 2005" to clarify multiple performances. Replaced "ensemble" with "orchestra". "Ensemble" is used several times throughout the article. Should any of these be changed as well? To me, an orchestra is a type of ensemble, perhaps I misunderstand the term. --Another Believer (Talk) 06:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • What is the relationship of VW's fourth symphony to war? You give this information in respect of the first three works. My understanding is that VW did not provide a program for the work; certainly my own recording of the work (Barbirolli 1937) gives no indication in the accompanying notes of a "war" theme, although the music is violent and passionate at times.

I will continue, as time permits. Brianboulton (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I look forward to additional comments when you have the time. Feel free to strike resolved concerns, or cap them if you prefer. I know it helps me to separate resolved and unresolved issues. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

General
  • "prior to" crops up five times: not sure what the phrase has that "before" hasn't
  • Several innocuous statements are given three separate citations: this isn't easy on the reader's eye and I'd be inclined to prune them or bundle them where practicable. See WP:CITEBUNDLE and WP:CITEKILL
Done. I believe there is only one instance in which a sentence is followed by three references. In this case, one sources verifies a live broadcast and two verify the partnership between the radio station and the Symphony. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Lead
Program
  • RVW's 4th Symphony: I heartily agree with Brianboulton's comment, above; dissonant though the work is, it has no programme. I note Kalmar's disclaimer in the first para of the section, but VW said of the Fourth "I wrote it not as a definite picture of anything external – e.g. the state of Europe – but simply because it occurred to me like that".
Performances and broadcasts
  • Not clear why you need another blue link to Carnegie Hall here; several more examples of WP:OVERLINK such as multiple links for Britten et al could do with trimming.
    • Removed link to Carnegie Hall since link appears in the section above. Other examples of overlinking? According to OVERLINK, articles' "first occurrence[s] after the lead" should be linked. As far as I can tell, throughout the article there are only duplicate links because words are linked the first time they appear in the lead as well as the first time they appear in the article. If there is a specific link you believe should be removed, please let me know. Thank you for catching the Carnegie Hall link, though. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Britten and Vaughan Williams have at least five blue links each. Tim riley (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
        • It appears all composers are linked: (1) in the lead, (2) in the lead infobox, (3) the first time they appear in the article itself, (4) in the image featuring all four composers, (5) in the Track listing section, and (6) in the Personnel section. For which appearances should links be removed? According to OVERLINK: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." --Another Believer (Talk) 18:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Also, according to WikiProject Albums, "names [in the Personnel section] should always be linked if an article exists". Seems appropriate to at least remove links in the Track listing section? --Another Believer (Talk) 18:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Second invitation to Spring for Music and cancellation
  • "News also emerged in February 2011" – this reads a bit oddly, as though the news was leaked rather than announced.
  • "it would not return to Carnegie in 2013" – the omission of "Hall" looks strange to an English eye, but if it's idiomatic American usage ignore me.
Image of Ives et al: I suspect I'm the user to whom Brianboulton refers above. I'd be happy to run up a quartered image. Do you mind if I crop Ives and Britten so that all faces are roughly the same size? I'll look in again to this page, or you can leave a note on my talk page. Best wishes. – Tim riley (talk) 13:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
By all means, please do whatever you think would look best. Thank you so much for offering to create the image. I was still searching for a way to just plug the four images into a window template, but your offer is one I cannot refuse. Thanks again! Please let me know if there are any additional concerns needing to be addressed. In the meantime, I will continue working on improvements based on feedback supplied by you and Brianboulton. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Image now uploaded at File:Ives-adams-rvw-britten.jpg to be used or not as you think best. Tim riley (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! --Another Believer (Talk) 18:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
My pleasure. But I must tell you that though I am no expert (haven't a clue, in truth) on WP's draconian copyright rules, I have my doubts if the Ives image, or even the Britten, will survive scrutiny by the image police. I have looked for unquestionably public domain replacements but without success. Brian knows more about this topic than I do, and he may like to comment in due course. Tim riley (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Ugh, copyright rules. I can never keep up. *rolls eyes* Well, if the image is removed, I will just replace it with separate images for individual composers, or something. Thanks for the heads up. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I am glad you both mentioned RVW's Symphony. Actually, this is one section I have not yet finished working on. I will be sure to expand the paragraph with information from the program as well as other sources. (There is a list of sources still needing to be incorporated into the article on the talk page.) I still need to expand the Reception section with a couple other major reviews. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Update: I have since expanded the RVW paragraph. As mentioned above (twice), there is not much program content to include, but I noted Williams' own thoughts on the symphony and how others interpreted the work. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Images: I see that Tim has alluded to my superior expertise on matters of copyright. Well, not that superior, but experience and a few hard lessons have given me some awareness of the pitfalls. I've looked at the four images in the composite:

  • Ives: unfortunately, the link to the source is inoperative, so we can't confirm the source of the image or the claimed original publication date of 1913.
  • Britten: this is asserted to be free of copyright on the "not renewed" basis, that is, the source book was published without a copyright notice. I find that quite hard to believe. The book, originally published in the Netherlands in 1960, was published in the UK in 1961 by Thomas Nelson, a leading British publisher; would they really have forgotten to register copyright? I've not seen the book; Tim has wonderful access to the British Library, and he may be able to peruse a copy.
  • Adams: I used this image on a project (Nixon in China) a year or so ago, and it went through FAC all right, on its present licence.
  • Vaughn Williams: no problem.

I don't suggest you remove the Ives and Britten images without further enquiry, but if the article is to be presented at FAC we will need to clear on these matters. Brianboulton (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. If the images are not suitable, I can simply remove the newly-uploaded collage image and include "approved" images in the article. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Infobox: Why has the article got two infoboxes? This is rather confusing, particularly as the first one lists the solo vocalist as a "guest", whatever that means. One such box is more than enough. Brianboulton (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

One for the concert program and one for the album. Both have specific infoboxes. They do contain several different parameters. Ideally, there would be a "subtemplate" for the concert infobox to provide details about the recording. Actually, I am not certain I have finished expanding the "Recording" section, so I am going to leave both infoboxes for now and I understand the concern may be re-visited during GAN/FAC. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Music for a Time of War/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bruce1ee (talk · contribs) 13:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this nomination, and I'll follow up here with my findings over the next couple of days. —Bruce1eetalk 13:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Looking forward to your comments. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    See comments below ...
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    See comments below ...
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    See comments below ...
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    See comments below ...
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    See comments below ...
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
Comments
  • 4.
    • At first glance it bothered me that the article heaps so much praise on the Oregon Symphony, which could be seen as being biased towards them. But most of this praise is supported by reliable secondary sources, and if there just wasn't any bad press, I guess then the article can't be seen as being biased.

Please have a look at the above issues I've found. Otherwise, it's a nicely written article with a good coverage of the subject. —Bruce1eetalk 14:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and assistance. I am in the process of addressing your concerns. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I believe I have addressed all of your concerns. Please review my changes and let me know if you have any other comments or concerns. Again, thank you so much. More work on this article remains, but I am so proud of its current state and have several Wikipedians to thank for their assistance, yourself included. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Everything looks fine now, I've promoted it to GA. Thanks for your fixes and all your hard work on this article. I've enjoyed doing this review and it's been a pleasure working with you. —Bruce1eetalk 06:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

COI

In accordance with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, I have chosen to disclose that I have a personal connection to this subject. I will spare details, but my main purpose in writing this article is to benefit Wikipedia and its mission. I believe this article is written from a neutral perspective and has been constructed from independent, reliable sources. The second link above provides the following summary, which I believe I have followed appropriately:

  • Be transparent about your conflict of interest ( Done)
  • Subjects require significant coverage in independent reliable sources. ( Done)
  • Your role is to inform and reference, not promote or sell. ( Done)
  • Be extremely cautious about the risks of editing articles about yourself or your clients ( Done|N/A)
  • If writing a draft, write without bias, as if you don't work for the company or personally know the subject. ( Done)
  • State facts and statistics, don't be vague or general. ( Done)
  • Take time to get sources and policy right. ( Done)
  • Get neutral, uninvolved, disinterested editors to review your draft. ( Doing...) ( Done)
  • Work with the community and we'll work with you. ( Doing...) ( Done)
  • Communicate, communicate, communicate. ( Doing...) ( Done)

My ultimate goal is to promote this article to Good or Featured status. I understand this will require review and assistance from other members of the community, which is great. I invite all to examine this article carefully to make sure the content is fair and accurate. Feel free to contact me if you have any concerns. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Update: I have written on the talk pages of both WikiProject Classical music and WikiProject Oregon, requesting that members review the article. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I have requested a peer review for this article, which remains incomplete but feedback would be helpful. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Following my request for a copyedit by the Guild of Copyeditors, the article received a review from User:Lfstevens. Much appreciated. My review of changes made to the article:

I agree with these changes to the article, except I don't see the need to create this subsection. Thank you, Lfstevens, for taking time to offer a review of the article. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, I removed the "Spring for Music Festival" subsection, which I do not believe is necessary. A single "Performances and broadcasts" section seems appropriate. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Music_for_a_Time_of_War/Archive_1&oldid=1038036501"