Talk:Royal Philharmonic Orchestra/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Eric Corbett (talk · contribs) 17:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments to follow over the next day or so.

Lead

• "The Royal Philharmonic Orchestra (RPO) is an orchestra based in London. It was formed in 1946 by Sir Thomas Beecham." "The orchestra ... is an orchestra" is one of my pet peeves. Could we not give the reader the benefit of the doubt and simply say that "The Royal Philharmonic Orchestra (RPO), based in London, was formed by Sir Thomas Beecham in 1946"?
  • Quite happy with that, if you wish to change it. On the whole I agree with you. I must look at my other recent orchestra GAs (LSO and BBC SO) and see if they need the same treatment. Tim riley (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Afterthough: I was just changing this when it occurred to me that your proposed phrasing does not make it clear from the outset that the orchestra is still in existence. Tim riley (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

      But equally there's no implication that it isn't still in existence. Eric Corbett 21:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• "... making film soundtracks and numerous gramophone recordings" "Gramaphone recordings" sounds rather quaintly period.
  • Not to one who buys Gramophone every month. We are going back through eight decades, remember. The RPO's earliest records came out on 78, as EMI was slow off the mark in launching LPs. Tim riley (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Beecham's orchestra

• "... comprised the Magic Flute Overture" Why is "Overture" capitalised?
  • Usually is, in my experience. Tim riley (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• "... Haydn's Military Symphony" Why is "Military" in italics?
  • That's its nickname. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Classical music titles Tim riley (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

    Then why is "Symphony" capitalised? Eric Corbett 20:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

    • Again, this is the form generally used. You would say "the Eroica Symphony" but "Beethoven wrote this symphony in ..." Tim riley (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

      Well obviously I wouldn't, but I'm happy to defer to you on such details. Eric Corbett 21:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

1961–2000

• "... Beethoven's Emperor Concerto Isn't it popularly known as the Emperor Concerto rather than the Emperor?
  • Lots of examples of either form. Tim riley (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

    As above. Eric Corbett 20:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

    • Ditto. Tim riley (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

21st century

• "In 2010–11 and two subsequent seasons the RPO was invited to give a series of concerts in Montreux, Switzerland." But did they take up the invitations?
  • Do you know, I remember thinking that when I was writing it, then forgot to change it. The wording results from the peer review, where "held a residency" was thought too hard a term. I'll change. Tim riley (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Recordings

• "After Beecham's death the orchestra made many recordings for Decca, sometimes under pseudonyms such as the "Beecham Symphony Orchestra", the "London Festival Orchestra" and the "Metropolitan Symphony Orchestra" Why did they use pseudonyms?
  • The source doesn't say. I imagine it was because EMI held some contractual veto over the use of the name on other labels, but that's speculation on my part. I can work out no rationale for when and why a pseudonym was or was not thought necessary. Tim riley (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Recordings available on the RPO label in 2013 ranged from core symphonic repertoire and Tchaikovsky ballet scores ..." Seems odd to use that past tense here as we're still in 2013.
  • I think it better to use the past tense in an encyclopaedia article. The present tense sticks out almost as badly there as it does in formal minutes of meetings. I stick to the past tense whenever I can. Most encylopaedias do, I think. The MoS (WP:DATED) expresses no view. Tim riley (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• As we're just discussing details that have no bearing on the GA criteria I think we can close this now. Nice article. Eric Corbett 21:29, 23 June 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.