Talk:Symphony No. 4 (Mahler)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ErnestKrause (talk · contribs) 14:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This may take a day or two to prepare comments. It might be useful of reduce the large number of red links in this article in the meantime. Also at the start of the article there is an apparent cross indication that Mahler considered this part of a trilogy of symphonies, while paragraph two speaks of it as tetralogy; language might be clarified. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking up this review. Per WP:RED: "In general, a red link should remain in an article if it links to a title that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing article, or article section, under any name." I believe this applies to all the red links currently in the article, unless you have any specific objections. As for whether the symphony is part of a trilogy or tetralogy, the answer is both: the former is an analytical/historical classification made by many commentators on Mahler's work while the latter is something Bauer-Lechner noted. This shouldn't be a contradiction, as a singular work can be part of multiple collections. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review comments

Review comments for the separate sections:

(1) Regarding section on trilogy or tetralogy, it would be nice to know if Mahler had a preference between the two, or if Mahler considered this symphony a companion to the third symphony when he moved the principal song from one symphony to the other. Otherwise, you could state at the start of the section that critics have had different opinions regarding the relation of this symphony to his others. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mahler recognized the thematic connections between his first four symphonies (per Zychowicz), but there is no such thing as a "preference between the two". Both interpretations are equally valid and are not contradictory. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 19:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(2) The redlinks for the items which have links to their German articles look redundant and ought to be dropped when the German link is plainly visible for inter-wiki readers. Having no English associated article is the reason you have linked the German article, and there appears no reason to redouble the emphasis on this by using redlinks. Regarding the other redlines, they actually look over-done. If even German Wikipedia does not have the articles as stubs then this borders on references to what is likely, at best, the large casts of 'supporting artists' and not especially notable. At least half of the redlinks should be removed. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 19:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(3) The discography section is a little troublesome in its current form and without elaboration. Why is there such a cluster of independent recording of this symphony in 1991-1992 as opposed to other decades where barely one per year were recorded. Also there seems little discussion of "revived" recordings which were apparently made at some earlier year but never released. This seems an odd recording strategy for studios to adopt where a symphony is recorded but not released to a decade or two after being first made? (See the columns in the discography which list the year recorded separate from the year released.) ErnestKrause (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no elaboration, because that is basically all the information I have. Smoley (the main source used for the discography) just so happens to include a lot of 1991–1992 recordings, and there is no explanation provided for that. Ditto for the recordings whose years of performance differ from the year of the release. Smoley seems mainly concerned with reviewing the quality and artistry of each recording. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 03:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(4) The discography section might look better as a article split on the example of the FA for Mahler #8. It might be useful to WP:CWW from 'List of compositions by Gustav Mahler, which gives a discography of the leading complete Mahler symphony recordings in a section at the end of that article. List the main complete recordings and have a separate article for the very long discography you currently are listing, whether it is complete or not. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Not sure which recordings count as "main recordings", so I just included an overview based on number of recordings + a Gutman's review. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 03:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(5) Musical scores included with optional tabs to listen to a musical sample appears to have text which "bleeds" fonts into one another. For example, the piano symbol 'p' flows or bleeds into the frame box for the musical sample box. This could be helped by adding an extra blank line judiciously between the musical scores included and their associated music sample tabs. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't touched music scores in Wikipedia before (these were here before I expanded), so I'm not sure how to approach this. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 03:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(6) The duration of the opening movement is given in this article as well as the total time for the symphony as a whole, though not given for the other movements. Is this intended for some reason? It should be consistent with an approximate time for each movement given. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other movement durations added. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 03:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(7) The Abbado and the Levi recordings for Symphony 4 both have separate articles on Wikipedia and it might be nice to link them here, possibly after the discography section is split into a separate article as is done in the FA to Sym 8. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of the rationale of these recordings being separate Wikipedia articles, let alone having them included in the Fourth Symphony article. Looking over the prose and sources indicate that each of these recordings ~~have received mild review coverage at best, which for some reason has been drawn out and extended into entire articles.~~ I have read the AFD discussions for these pages, but still remain unconvinced that they should be included as I am not able to access/verify any of the offline sources myself to discuss the recordings. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 03:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is already an FA for the Mahler biography and for his Symphony 8 which you might compare to this current nomination. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ErnestKrause: Thank you. I have used these two as models throughout the expansion process and in addressing your concerns. Please let me know if there is more I can do. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 03:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edits

After a read through of your revisions, these are the copy edits starting with the lead section:

(1) Second paragraph of lead section could clarify wording in "confusing intentions and inadequacy." It is not clear what "inadequacy" means here when speaking of Mahler's high competence. If the sentence is trying to say that reviewers found that the 4th Symphony was inferior to the Second, then it seems using the word 'inferior' is less ambiguous and more on the mark. Later in the same paragraph of the lead section it is stated that Mahler changed several movements after the initial performance, though none of these revision dates are given. The lead section would look better informed if the three revision dates (listed in the article) where mentioned by years of the changes which Mahler made. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(2) The Composition section under History uses the phrase "a quotation of the song", though this seems out of chronological sequence to be a quotation in conventional usage. It seems more like a "preliminary version" of the phrase(s) which would eventually appear in the song's final version as it appeared in Sym 4. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Das Himmlische Leben" was composed in 1892, so this wouldn't be non-chronological. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(3) Same section in Composition uses the wording "Per Paul Becker" might look better as "According to Paul Becker..." Later in the same section, a six-movement outline is given even though the final form of the symphony is in 4 movements. Could this articulated to state that this 6-movement form is still in the process of being converted by Mahler into the final form? ErnestKrause (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done for point 1. I don't believe point 2 is necessary because the text already clarifies that the six-movement plan is "an early program sketch", and that Mahler modified this sketch into the present four-movement structure. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(4) Later in the same section in Composition the phrase "chance the entire year" might look better as "chance during the entire year". ErnestKrause (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(5) Same Composition section, the phrase "ghastly health-resort music", might look better with a prefix phrase like "forced to listen to shat he called 'ghastly...'" ErnestKrause (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in Floros 1993 that indicates Mahler was in any way "forced" to listen to the music. Not sure if there's any way to prefix this given the information we have. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(6) The Priemier section might look better is the informal word "booing" were changed to "vocal derision" in both of its instances in this section. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The repetition of "vocal derision" seems a bit awkward and stilted, so I only substituted it once. Formality shouldn't be an issue here, because La Grange uses "boos" when describing the criticism as well. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(7) The Subsequent performances section uses variations of the phrase "unanimously negative receptions" and "near-unamimous condemnation", which is it? From reading the section, it appears that the phrase "near-unanimous condemnation" is more accurate and it should replace the incorrect claim of calling it fully "unanimous". ErnestKrause (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The text indicates that fully "unanimous" criticism was given by most cities during the 1901 German tour, a fact La Grange 1973 clearly supports. "Near-unanimous" applies to the Berlin premiere, which is distinct from the Kaim Orchestra's German tour. However, you would be correct in assessing the reception overall to be "near-unanimous", which is why the lead uses that term. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(8) The caption for Weingartner might include a mention that he would never return to conducting the symphony again. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a bit excessive for an image caption, especially since I included that trivia in part because I found it somewhat amusing. I think placing that fact out-of-context in the image caption might distort the reader's perception of Weingartner as that of another contemporary "critic" of Mahler, which is definitely not the case. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(9) The Subsequent performances section ought to end with some comment on how often the symphony is performed/recorded in comparison to the other Mahler symphonies. Is it as popular as the Symphony 8, or, is it less popular than the "Resurrection" symphony? Some comparative statement would be useful at the end of this section. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I have not been able to find a source that assesses this symphony's comparative popularity to other Mahler symphonies (besides symphony rankings, which either do not include the Fourth, or merely gloss over it without anything notable to say). GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(10) Also, the Subsequent performances section might benefit from adding in another mention of the Schiff and Adorno comments which you already include later on as being using in this context as well. That is, that in subsequent performances, reviewers found that the Finale provided a successful musical depiction of an unattainable Heaven," or something like that. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll consider this, ~~but I'm not sure about whether repeating information in the body of an article is stylistically acceptable.~~ GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite the reason I wanted to articulate. I feel that this bit of information is more analysis than history, and it's unknown whether Schiff and Adorno's comments were in response to "subsequent performances" of the symphony. Overall, the connection feels a bit iffy. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(11) In the Instrumentation section, place a comma after the phrase "woodwinds and stings, while Michael...".ErnestKrause (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(12) My suggestion to use "div col 2" on the listing of the instruments. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(13) The Form section currently seems to give differing views of the performance times without warning the reader. You currently give "50 minutes" in the text of this section, but when adding the example you give for the individual movements, they add up to 57 minutes. If estimates vary from 50-60 minutes depending on which source you consult, then the article should state 50-60 minutes for the total duration. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about overall range in estimates, but I clarified that the La Grange movement durations summed to a different duration length. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(14) In describing the first movement, you state that there is an "ensuing development section" though its not clear where this occurs in this 20 minute movement. Is it half way in, near the ending, or where? Some reference to where during the twenty minutes it occurs could help here. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the timestamp, nor am I sure if this is necessary. I have yet to encounter a symphonic analysis that includes timestamps for when different sections of a movement come in. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(15) In the third movement description there is a reference to "double theme and variations" which is unclear to my reading. Does "double theme" mean that they are repeated twice? Is there a clear wording for this? ErnestKrause (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The second sentence of the description describes it as a variation on two themes. However, I have now clarified this with a link to "Double variations". GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(16) Check spacing on "oboeintroduces" later in this movement 3 paragraph. Also the phrase "final passage sounds what Zychowicz" might read better as "final passage sounds like what Zychowicz...". ErnestKrause (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what is meant by the first point. I believe my original intent was unclear in the second point, since I'm not going for "sounds like". I've rephrased it to "includes". GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(17) Is it "choralelike" or "chorale-like". I ask because you use it twice in the movement 3 discussion. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I use "choralelike" consistently because that's the style Floros writes it in. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(18) Your wording at the end of this section is "are present yet unattainable" might look better as "are strongly suggested yet unattainable". ErnestKrause (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about "strongly suggested", since that implies that joy is not explicitly expressed/mentioned in the finale—which it is. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(19) The revision section states "yet unpublished revisions" which might add the particle "as yet unincluded revisions." ErnestKrause (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(20) Regarding recordings, my previous comment from earlier in the week was to indicate that pride of place is often given to composers who have recorded the entire cycle of symphonies, as opposed to those who have covered them selectively. That's not a universal distinction but a distinction which is often made by reviewers and critics. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure what you want me to do here. Do you want me to list those who've conducted full cycles ahead of those who didn't? For the conductors, I've only followed the order in which Gutman mentioned them. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if any of this needs clarification and ping me when ready with your revisions. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ErnestKrause: Thank you for the copy edit suggestions. I've responded to all of the points, but could use some clarification on a few of them. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Close review. Article is well-written and contains many details with citations which are often lacking in other music articles. The pictures and caption are well chosen, and the history is informative to read both for casual readers and readers with a more established musical background. Optionally, you might consider to make a note on the Tech Noticeboard to ask how to avoid the textual overlap on the article page when the Wikipedia musical score apps are used simultaneously with the Wikipedia music playback apps. They should be able to give you a simple way to keep the graphics from bunching up. Article is promoted. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll be sure to check with the Tech Noticeboard. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]