Talk:The Wood Nymph

Infobox usage and editing on Sibelius tone poems

Hello, fellow Sibelian and welcome to the wonderful world of the Sibelius tone poems! I am sure we are of one mind: the 13 Sibelius examples in this form represent, along with his seven symphonies and the violin concerto, the height of his orchestral powers. As such, I have taken the liberty over the last year of giving some of these tone poems (namely, The Wood Nymph and The Oceanides) the expanded treatment I think they deserve.

As part of this expansion project, I have added infoboxes onto each of the tone poem pages (save for Finlandia and Luonnotar and two that don't yet exist, The Dryad and Pan and Echo) to assist our readers in having the most important information about each piece at their fingertips. I feel that standardization of infobox information and form is something we should strive to maintain among these pieces, and as such, I suggest that any changes be agreed to by the community. If you're interested, I have the following opinions:

1. Let's keep the picture of Sibelius the same for all his compositions, so as to create the feel of 'articles in a series'
2. Let's have the opening title be the name in English (unless the native title is more famous, e.g., En saga)
3. Let's include 'native name' or 'English name' below the picture if the piece goes by more than one name
4. Let's have the form (e.g., tone poem) appear up-top next to the composer's name
5. Let's include the average duration
6. Let's have the caption under the image of Sibelius be "The composer in 1913"
7. Let's keep the dates of composition/revision (important for some pieces, e.g., the Fifth Symphony, consistent with List of compositions by Jean Sibelius
8. Let's have each infobox include information on 'movements', even if it is only one; this provides standardization among pieces.

Okay, thanks for reading! If you are so inclined to add the infobox to the seven symphonies (or the four tone poems mentioned above) or some of his incidental music, please be my guest. My focus, for now, is on the tone poems.

Sgvrfjs (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: I have included this message on the talk pages of each of the existing tone poems that have infoboxes.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Concertmusic (talk · contribs) 20:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

---

Opening statement

I am grabbing this article for a GA review. I hope to get this review done by next week, or possibly earlier if time permits. It will be done in stages, where I will post edits to this page with my signature and time stamp to indicate updates.

Generally, I will try to indicate a suggested edit by saying "I would", versus an edit that should be made, where I will say "please add" or the like. After reading through the article several times (and I always read it more than once before I ever agree to do a GA review), this article is an informative and enjoyable read, and I learned quite a bit already.

As I usually do, I will make detailed comments below, and will explain any high-level GA-specific points in the Assessment section. Also as usual, I will make numerous comments that may improve the article in my opinion, but are not strictly necessary to pass the GA review. Please feel free to take them or leave them. Anything that must be updated to meet the GA criteria will be highlighted as such.

Comments

• General punctuation comment: I would add a few commas to perfect the punctuation of the article. I am happy to do that myself as part of this review - please just let me know if you are okay with that course of action. I will therefore not point out all instances of where commas are needed.

 Done NPalgan2 (talk) 08:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Lead

• Quotation comment: I and finding ambiguous material on whether the quotation you use in the 2nd paragraph ("caught Finland, and the musical world, by surprise") should be cited there, or whether the citation in the body of the article suffices. Maybe you have come across reliable on that note. I will not suggest any changes, and hope that I am incorrect.

• Per WP:LEADCITE, quotations in the lead need to be cited: The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• Great catch - thank you! --Concertmusic (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

 DoneNPalgan2 (talk) 08:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• CE: I have now stared at phrase "sixty year disappearance" or several minutes, and nothing better has come to mind without rephrasing that part. It does appear somewhat awkward to me, however, so I think a rephrasing may be in order. How about something like this: "Despite having been lost for sixty years, the tone poem's thematic material..."?

 DoneNPalgan2 (talk) 08:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Composition

• CE: 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: I think the word "admittedly" is both superfluous, and introduces a possible element of issues with neutrality, or of stating an opinion that is not supported with a reference. I would drop the word altogether.

 DoneNPalgan2 (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• CE: 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: There appears to be a word missing at the end of this sentence. If my guess is correct, it is the word underlined and added: "...out of music Sibelius had planned but never realized for a verismo opera." Please review and correct.

 DoneNPalgan2 (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• Reference request: 1st paragraph: I believe that the first instance of Reference 1 should be at the end of the block quote, rather than at the end of that paragraph. This is especially true if Reference 1 supports the entire first paragraph AND the block quote - in which case you also have the option of using it in both places, but it certainly needs to be at the end of the block quote. Please review and advise.

 DoneNPalgan2 (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC) (but not by me)

• Question: I noticed that in Reference 3, Barnett states that the tone poem is Op. 16. What do you make of this statement in Barnett? Is there any need to address that discrepancy?

* Spring Song is Op.16. I think that the discrepancy is just a slip of the finger, doesn't need addressing as all other sources and the article itself say op.15 and this should be quicky obvious to any reader who notices it. NPalgan2 (talk) 08:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Performances

• Picture question: Why did you choose this particular picture? I have no real issue with it, but at the very least, the caption does need to be more descriptive as to why, or in what context, that picture is located here.

* I have changed several of the pictures to make them more relevant to the text. The forest picture I deleted for reason given in edit summary. NPalgan2 (talk) 08:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• CE: 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: I would add "with" into this sentence, as shown underlined: "The tone poem premiered on 17 April 1895, at the Great Hall of the University of Helsinki, with Sibelius himself conducting the Helsinki Orchestral Society".

 Done Triplecaña (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• Reference question: 1st paragraph: Reference 4 by Anderson appears to support just the item about the 1936 performance. Since Reference 4 breaks up the paragraph from a referencing perspective, Reference 2 should be kept where it is at the end of the paragraph, but also be added at the end of the sentence prior to the use of Reference 4.

• CE: Typo: 2nd paragraph: Please correct "Lahti Symphony Orchestraon".

 Done Triplecaña (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• Reference link suggestion: This link [1] could be used for the Tumelty reference (Reference 5).

 Done Triplecaña (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Structure

• Reference question: Reference 2 at the end of paragraph 1: By the use of the quotes, it appears that you are quoting directly from Kurki. However, the text does not use the term "changing atmospheres", but describes the "different atmospheres" being created. I therefore think that the direct quote must be used, or you can rephrase the text and drop the quotation indicator.

* I decided to drop the last clause and cite Goss p. 204-206 to cite that each of the four poem's four sections correspond to a musical one and vice versa. NPalgan2 (talk) 09:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• Reference request: Are the the structure of the four sections supported by any reference that is available?

 DoneNPalgan2 (talk) 09:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• Picture question: As you did in The Oceanides, please add more descriptive language to show why your are including the nordic forest picture here. The same goes for the Lenoir picture, even though at least it clearly refers to nymph, but it could still use a bit more descriptive text.

• See above. NPalgan2 (talk) 09:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Reception

• Reference request: Reference 15 should also be shown at the end of the block quote in this section.

 Done Triplecaña (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Autobiographical details

• Reference request: Reference 20 should also be shown at the end of the block quote in this section.

 Done Triplecaña (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

End of comments to date

I hope to add more comments later today, and certainly on Friday. Thank you! --Concertmusic (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Summary

This article is in great shape, and just needs the minor attention itemized above. Please review and leave me any comments of your own to consider, and I will monitor this closely over the next few days. Thank you - I enjoyed reviewing this article very much! --Concertmusic (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without spelling and grammar errors:

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

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   D. No copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused (see summary style):

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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

The note with the GAN says that the review will be wrapped up in early May per nom and reviewer, but now both sides haven't edited since April. Not sure how we should proceed on this one? Someone did step in and make fixes so I'd lean towards passing. Wizardman 00:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd lean toward not listing: the edits were to one section, and the majority of the requested fixes have not been done. Furthermore, Concertmusic said I hope to add more comments later today, and certainly on Friday.... and never came back. (Also was prepared to failed it around March 31, but removed that note a couple of weeks later and went with the May proposal.) It can be renominated if the nominator ever does return. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Still no edits by either after a week so I'll close this. if the nom wants to re-nom and the reviewer wants to jump back in and continue where they left off that's fine. Wizardman 22:24, 11 June 2016 (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.

Illustration by gallen

Apparently Akseli Gallen-Kallela illustrated Skogsrået: https://books.google.com/books?id=929lNk1fqXoC&pg=PA202 . if a free image of this could be found, it would be an excellent addition to the article. NPalgan2 (talk) 08:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Revive GA process

Hi, I just came across this article and was impressed by the quality of the work already here, mostly done by Sgvrfjs. I've made some edits and tried to address the points raised by Concertmusic and Triplecaña. See my notes at Talk:The_Wood_Nymph/GA1. I'm interested in finishing the GA process and seeing how to take this to FA status maybe. NPalgan2 (talk) 09:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

NPalgan2, the GA1 review is long-since closed, and really shouldn't have been posted to. In any event, your new nomination will be treated as a completely separate process—not a revival but its own thing—and will eventually be picked up by a reviewer and a new review page created by the reviewer at that time. Please be aware that this may take quite some time, as there are nearly 400 other nominated articles awaiting a reviewer. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

1894/1895

Hi Sgvrfjs, I noticed that TWN is listed as 1894 in this article and the list of compositions. However, I can't find RSs that say it was finished by the end of the year... just wanted to check before changing it to 1894 and 1895. NPalgan2 (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Just looked at the liner notes to the 2006 Vanska. 1894-1895 is what they use. Not sure why I didn't have that before. I can check Tawaststjerna later. Sgvrfjs (talk) 05:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Wood Nymph/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 00:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

A few oddities should probably be addressed:

• The cello piece given in the third movement, though the accidentals do push it into C# major territory, is technically written in a key signature of either E major or C# minor. This should be explained.

 Not done Sibelius used that key signature in the score and its quoted thus in 2ndry sources - maybe because it's fiddly to keep writing out all the sharps of C# major all the time. I considered adding the string harmonics but the midi file would be much less clear then currently. I don't think it's sufficiently unusual or important to note in article. NPalgan2 (talk) 03:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@NPalgan2: It throws you when you're expecting C# major, though, and that's not the key signature shown. It makes it ambiguous as to whether the whole section is notated that way, or if the theme was quoted during a temporary shift to another harmony. I'd probably add the harmonies, by the wayy, if only because the first thing I did was play it out, and the effect is not very clear from the melody alone. At the moment, though, I'm leaning pass. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done see main article. NPalgan2 (talk) 06:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• There are numerous Harv errors being flagged up in the references. I know they're often quite fiddly, it appears to just be that. Spent a few minutes fixing this for you..

Thanks very much! NPalgan2 (talk) 03:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• AGFing on the references covering the material, however the bit at the end of the lead about the solo piano and melodrama arrangements is sort of covered later in the article, but not exactly. Maybe add a cite to that (and make explicit in the lead that the solo piano arrangement is only of the finale.)

 Done On further consideration, I decided to remove the piano arrangement from the lead, it's not sufficiently important and is as you say slightly confusing.NPalgan2 (talk) 04:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd revise the second paragraph of the lead a little bit for flow - it's a bit choppy at the moment, and given the high quality of the writing in the rest of the article, it stands out. It's not really a blocker for GA, but that will hit you at FAC. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I think that's all the major issues. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Adam, Thanks for taking on the review and especially for dealing with the references. NPalgan2 (talk) 03:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

No worries. A couple more notes, but I'll be honest: It's basically passed in my eyes already. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the harmonies do a lot to show the third section is firmly in the C# major camp. I would still suggest copyediting the second paragraph of the lead, Never mind: You were actively doing that but... ✓ Pass. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Adam Cuerden, Thanks for your suggestions and passing the article! I'm sorry that I've been editing while you review, I've never done a GA review before and was expecting to sit in a queue for months! As you see I've recast the second paragraph of the lead. Thanks again and let me know if you have any ideas for bringing it to FA level. Thanks again, NPalgan2 (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, you can easily sit in the queue for months. I have a GAR that's five months old - but I'm rather a classical music geek..

I'm not sure what more FAC would need. The piece has been fairly intermittently important, perhaps the best thing might be to add in some more detail about critical reaction to the 1936 performance, and - depending on sources covering it - things like comparing the adaptations to the main work. Unless you're going to spin them out into their own articles, at least the melodrama should probably get more discussion, particularly its performance history, and how it differs from the main work. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

A request

@Gerda Arendt, Tim riley, Ipigott, Sgvrfjs, and Brianboulton: Fellow Sibelians, for those of you who don't know me, I recently came across The Wood Nymph and was impressed by the work Sgvrfjs had put into it and struck by the stalled GA nomination. I made some more edits and I am pleased to say that the article has just passed to GA status. I would greatly appreciate if you could cast an eye over the article now as I believe it is close to FA level. Some issues:

• I can't find much RS information about the other op. 15 iterations, not sure that it exists.
• Also, it is worth completing discography for the other iterations or just mention the most notable?
• I did a rough an ready translation of the poem using my German, google translate and the previous copyvio-ing version, but I think Sgvrfjs could help with polishing this.

Best, NPalgan2 (talk) 09:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, and your effort. Will look (especially at the German), but not right now. Sadly Brianboulton can't help, and Tim riley is still in retirement. Wish he'd come back to content work. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@NPalgan2: You've been doing a great job on touching up the impressive work by Sgvrfjs. I'm glad to see the article has now reached GA status. I've improved the translation of the last verse of the poem but perhaps I need to go through the whole thing. Google is not good for poetry, certainly not when archaic terms are used. I'll try to spend a bit more time on it later today.--Ipigott (talk) 12:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

By 'other Op. 15 iterations' do you mean the melodrama, piano excerpt and the song (incidentally, catalog number JS 171)? I would check the liner notes for the original CD releases of these if you haven't (NOT the Sibelius Edition releases). They *should* be available on eClassical.com. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Those are all mentioned in the article. I've checked the liner notes, but nothing interesting. Thanks to Ipigott for improving the Swedish. Sorry to hear about Brianboulton, I was recently looking at the Lt. Kije article and hadn't known he was ill. NPalgan2 (talk) 14:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• I've now completed the translation of all four sections. It's not a work of art but faithfully reproduces the original which I think is what is needed here. Maybe someday I'll try to produce something a little more poetic!--Ipigott (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks all for your help; I've obviously had to take a step back as I attend to other things. I can probably help out later this month (Dec. 20s), but not sooner. I will say, however, that I'm a bit confused why a new translation of the poem was needed. The one I had used was from either Goss or the liner notes to one of the Vanska recording. I can check to see, but it would seem to me that we should use whatever is most associated with the recordings. Sgvrfjs (talk) 05:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Surely it's a copyright violation? The translation would've been done in 1996. NPalgan2 (talk) 05:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

NPalgan2 I've tried to overcome the copyvio problem by correcting the mistranslations, working from the original Swedish. There were a considerable number of errors in the GA version. But I now have an additional problem in that the introductions to the four segments contain snippets from the former version of the poem. I've altered those in the intro to the first segment but stopped there. I cannot access the sources quoted but I would be surprised if the experts cited misunderstood the poem. As you appear to have access to these sources, could you (or perhaps Sgvrfjs) check them out. To satisfy Sgvrfjs, it might be useful to include a note explaining that there are at least two published English translations of the poem.

I've also redlinked some of the Finnish wikilinks as I think we need to cover these people in English. Hardly any English-speakers can read Finnish. I can probably do the bios myself over the next few days. Would it be useful to include a section on recent performances and their reception? (See [2], [3]) Once these issues have been handled, I think we could go for FA. We'll no doubt receive a number of recommendations for further work once we do so.--Ipigott (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Ipigott. The original English translation was from the liner notes of Vanska. The snippets from the poem quoted in the article proper were all directly inserted by sgvrfjs from the translation rather than being quotations of quotations in the books cited, so they can just mirror whatever the translation we provide in the article ends up being. I don't know if different English translation have been provided in different liner notes of the 4 different recordings, but I don't think it's notable enough to be worth mentioning. I would say that the current translation may be accurate but it is a bit jarring for an English reader, so before we go for FA I'll make some minor edits. I linked to the Finnish wiki bio links as google translate is so good nowadays but obviously english articles are even better. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now. Thanks for the explanation, and the hard work. Sorry I'm not more involved. Sgvrfjs (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

"Throughout his career, Sibelius was troubled with creative 'blocks' and bouts of depression. This led him to commit score to the flames when he felt unable to revise them to the level he demanded. This was the fate most notoriously of the Symphony No. 8, but also of many works from the 1880s and 1890s." This seems such a commonplace to say about Sibelius, but I cant find an RS that says precisely this for a cite... NPalgan2 (talk) 06:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)