Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hector Berlioz/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:16, 22 December 2018 [1].

Hector Berlioz

[edit]
Nominator(s): Tim riley talk 21:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia now has FAs or GAs on thirteen French composers – Alkan, Bizet, Boulez, Debussy, Fauré, Josquin, Massenet, Messager, Messiaen, Offenbach, Poulenc, Ravel and Saint-Saëns. It seems right that one of France's greatest composers should join them as an FA. The article has had the benefit of a peer review as thorough and helpful as any I can remember, and I think it now meets the FA standards. I look forward to your comments. – Tim riley talk 21:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I had a spare hour sitting around earlier and took that long time to read through the copy I had with me while waiting for my very late guest to turn up! A few minor typos picked up with these edits Three very minor points to pick up on here – they read slightly inelegantly to me, but you may disagree and it won't affect my support.
1821–1824
  • "graduated from the medical school": "from medical school"? I'm a big fan of the def article, but not sure it's needed here.
  • "suggested law as an alternative profession, but refused to" "but"? Wouldn't "and" work better?
1860–1869
  • "Berlioz's wife, Marie, died": do we need the name, only two paras after the wedding?

My review has been on prose and formatting only as I know nearly nothing about Hector, and even less about musicology. Interesting stuff, nevertheless. – SchroCat (talk) 21:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not rising to "guest", above. Agree on all three drafting points, and will change the text accordingly. Thank you for your input here and at peer review. And thank you for your support here, too. Tim riley talk 08:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Double sharp

[edit]

Can we have some more on Berlioz's musical style? Currently we only significantly cover his orchestration; his use of harmony, phrasing, and structure is barely touched on. IMHO Chopin's article is an excellent model for covering those aspects of technique as well as one can without tons of musical examples. Double sharp (talk) 04:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have been mindful of the length of the article: I was hoping to keep it to under 9,000 words (the average for composer FAs is almost exactly 7,000 and although Tchaikovsky became an FA at 12,600 words he has subsequently been pruned to 8,000, leaving only three FA composer articles with more than 9,000 words) but I have added another 238 words on harmony and counterpoint, not too full of technical terms, I hope. Tim riley talk 08:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley: Looks great; I have nothing else major, so I'll support. Double sharp (talk) 02:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Your support is greatly appreciated. Tim riley talk 16:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SN54129

[edit]
  • Regarding the notation images, is there any reason they're different sizes? I see one of them's 2.5 (good—as it's very detailed), but the others (although they seem as equally detailed?) between 1.3 and 1.
  • Personally I think the portraits could be their normal sizes, but maybe my eyes are getting manky.
    • I think I have used "upright=" less than 100% for a couple of images to stop them clogging the text too much, but am not ferociously committed to those sizes, and will not object if the consensus is to put them at 100% Tim riley talk 15:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could cantata be linked?
  • "Reputation and Berlioz scholarship"—I would have thought the subject of the scholarship is probably obvious by now!
Article is cool beans though, cheers. ——SerialNumber5412914:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for these points. Tim riley talk 15:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smerus

[edit]

just to stir the pot as I flit by....

The article is first class, the FA proposal has my support.

Some thoughts on the operas. In the 'music' section you don't give the dates of the operas which could be helpful (I know BC and LT are dated in the 'life' section, but B&B isn't mentioned there). You might also mention what Berlioz was up against at this time, i.e. grand opera and Meyerbeer, whom B memorably said had the "luck to be talented and the talent to be lucky" (and who also to B's subliminated resentment was wealthy in his own right). Grand opera sucked up the resources and audiences for opera in Paris. As Cairns writes, for BC "Berlioz ...was an opera composer on sufferance, one who composed on borrowed time paid for with money that was not his but lent by a wealthy friend", and effectively none of his operas was written to contract or with any promise of performance. Which makes them even more remarkable imo. Some of this might be mentioned. (or not).--Smerus (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this, Smerus. I've dealt with the dates and will ponder how to accommodate the Meyerbeer and money points (without further inflating the word count too much!) Tim riley talk 16:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And now done, though I'm dithering a bit about whether it might be better in the Life than in the Works section. Shall ponder further. Tim riley talk 17:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a six and two threes situation.--Smerus (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Tony1

[edit]

1a, lead:

  • I'm allergic to a colon within a succession of semicolons. Needs surgery there. And do you really want to list individual work-names rather than simply listing the genres he wrote in? ... Maybe, but it becomes indigestible after the first few. More important to briefly convey at the opening the big-picture of his place in music history. Symph Fant was, after all, a turning point in the onset of romanticism in music, wasn't it?
  • "As the elder son of a provincial doctor"—just checking: he had one brother, right?
    • Right. 16:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Second paragraph beautifully written. Except for this: "those who thought him an original genius and those who thought his music lacked form and coherence". The grammar's a bit arch, and jerks the reader when they get to the second "thought", which is very different grammatically. "regarded him as an. 16:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)"?
  • "A romantic in his personal life as well as in his art,"—I'm slightly uncomfortable about using this association, presumably between a flush of oxytocin in the brain, and the complex social, political, and technical aspects of romantic style in music. Makes for cute wording, but it's misleading.
  • I'm not used to the lowercase "f" in "fantastique" (in an English-language context).
  • "musical journalism" or "music journalism"?
  • tension between 'throughout" (the whole span) and "much" (a subset of it): "throughout much of his career". During much, or throughout his career. And you've got the th-word again in the same sentence.

Oppose for prose until things are sorted out, and I'd like to go through more than just the lead. Tony (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions. Comments added. Tim riley talk 16:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not used to being challenged by having a consensus required for my points. On the contrary, you need to present reasons why those points are not actionable. Tony (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic remarks
Oh, get you! I suggest you get used to it. Your assumption of a monopoly of wisdom is arrogant and contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Oppose by all means. Tim riley talk 16:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tony1, I have thought your points on my previous FACs were good, and I was extremely grateful for them, but there are occasions when points are not always necessary, given the perfectly acceptable difference in styles between writers. There is always more than one way to crack an egg, and so it is with well-written English. For example, a colon to introduce a list followed be separating semi colons is acceptable (or at least it was when I was taught it); "those who thought him an original genius" reads perfectly well to my British English eye, but maybe the slightly less formal Aussie English eye thinks it stuffy - who knows? At the end of it, many of the points you have here are not about grammar or structure being "wrong", per se, but about a personal preference on the style - and I think De gustibus is a point that should play a part in prose reviews, I think. Tim is an excellent writer, very approachable and eminently flexible when good points are made. He also rarely makes grammatical errors, and I am sure he will look at the points you have made again to see if there is a good enough reason to change things, rather than just for stylistic reasons. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not buying this trick to weaken the role of reviewers. This is a slippery slope: soon we'll find every prose issue a reviewer raises is met with a retort of "only if there's consensus". It's an oppose, and until he fixes the issues or provides detailed reasoning for why they should not be fixed, the oppose stays. I have yet to go through the rest. Tony (talk) 03:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no 'trick' here, Tony. I'm looking at your comments and seeing that most of these are not actual errors, but stylistic preference. I've given two examples above that I do not see as being problematic: the colon introducing a list, with semi-colons breaking up that list; and the "those who thought him an original genius" phrase. I'll dig out my Fowler later to see what he says on the first point. As to the second, perhaps changing the second "thought" to "considered" would ease part of your concern, although I think we obsess a little too much about a repeated word, and "considered" may feel false in comparison, who knows. Either way, this isn't my article, or my review, but I do think you could add little more flexibility into your position, rather than being quite so absolutist and thinking that they are the only way to do things: English is flexible, particularly when you consider the differences between the various variants. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat: Actually, I don't like the repetition of various variants, and so I must oppose you forever. ——SerialNumber54129 11:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Serial on various variants, which is surely a hill worth dying on. Schro THIS IS THE END ;) Ceoil (talk) 11:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was the best I could do with the hangover that is only just clearing... out watching Pixies last night. - SchroCat (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
...Mmmm; a timely reminder to dig out my copy of Pilgrim... ——SerialNumber54129 13:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC) [reply]
The top and bottom of this is that if a reviewer at PR or FAC makes a suggestion I agree with I adopt it forthwith. If I don't agree with it I will of course adopt it if other reviewers think it preferable. If Tony is going to oblige with a review of my main text I shall adopt any of his suggestions I agree with, and also any I don't agree with but other reviewers do. That is how Wikipedia works. – Tim riley talk 14:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer's response

Off-topic remarks

I'm afraid I'm not one of Tim Riley's lickspittles or sycophants, even if I did accuse him of having "beautifully written" the second paragraph. Rather, I take a more neutral, technical attitude to his writing; it's very good in many places, but it's speckled with issues that need fixing—most of them are minor, but together they subtract the prose from FA standard.

I'm not going to descend to issuing ad-hominem insults and intimidation ("Your assumption of a monopoly of wisdom is arrogant"). Nor do I take lightly his crude attempt to undermine the FAC review process by demanding consensus-gathering on almost every point ("I suggest you get used to it", he writes). It's unseemly behaviour by a nominator. What I care about is our readers, who are apparently absent from consideration by those posting here.

We're going to have to put up with a lot of RFCs on this page: I'm prepared to start a run of them if consensus has to be debated. And I hope no one minds if I insert advice at every nomination page that there's a simple way of rebutting FAC critiques: you just demand consensus.

Now, let's examine just the first point in my review of the lead: a colon within a succession of semicolons. On this matter I consulted two linguists today. Both supported my objection. One advised me to "make the point about readability. Readers will find it difficult to follow. ... I think it doesn't belong".

But a deeper problem surrounds the first point: the opening paragraph is an indigestible, winding path, cluttered by no fewer than 11 parenthetical years in 75 words. There is little point in gumming up what should be a broad sweep that introduces the topic by describing the big picture of one of the great composers. The years zig-zag from earlier to later and back, so conveying chronological development is clearly not the rationale; and the years of composition appear below in the main text, where the chronological can be nested in a more detailed, explanatory narrative. If the purpose of the laundry list is to show the array of genres in which he wrote, that's fair enough. So why obscure this by making readers hack through redundant numerical undergrowth and unnecessarily elaborate punctuation, which at one point is unusual and disruptive?

Here is the current opening, which will turn off all but the hardiest readers, followed by a version the nominator might well have politely suggested to overcome the problem I raised, instead of shooting bullets of personalised rudeness:

––––––––––––––––

––––––––––––––––

––––––––––––––––

I don't agree with a comment below that "hybrid" might be opaque to too many readers. Tony (talk) 14:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't want to disrupt someone else's FAC, but "I'm not going to descend to issuing ad-hominem insults and intimidation" does not parse in any way with accusing seven other reviewers of being "one of Tim Riley's lickspittles or sycophants". If you want to be taken seriously, at least try not to treat the rest of us like dross.
I spoke to four linguists... and other nice stories. Fowler does not query or debar the practice, which is certainly good enough for any British English speakers. Were the "linguists" you spoke to British, or one of the other variants of English?
I go back to my original point: there are several ways of phrasing something, and just because you happen to prefer one way does not mean that other versions are not equally as good or even (shock horror) better than yours. Stop being so bloody didactic and dictatorial in your approach with people and maybe they may take you seriously.
I'm going to step away from this, as dealing with inflexible viewpoints on something as flexible as an opinion on what grammar works best is not something I enjoy. Love and kisses, a lickspittle. - SchroCat (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
Thank you, as always, Nikkimaria, for your review. I've a couple of points on which I'd be glad of a steer. Tim riley talk 15:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've put you to more trouble than usual, and I'd like to repeat my thanks for your guidance. Tim riley talk 20:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Support from Dmass

[edit]

Picking up where I left off at peer review:

Struggling Composer

  • First para, first sentence: comma needed after ‘1830 Revolution’.
  • Para 3: hyphen for ‘well-founded’?
    • I don't think so. I agree with Gowers that "if you take hyphens seriously you will surely go mad", but I am reasonably OK on this aspect: if used attributively it's "a well-founded suspicion", but when used predicatively, as here, "a suspicion is well founded". – Tim riley talk 20:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Works

  • Possibly brackets round / dashes before and after ‘rather than the German "architectural"’?
  • Where you say: ‘in operas, and to a large extent in orchestral music’ it’s unclear whether you’re referring to Berlioz or to French music generally. It’s also very sweeping - Saint-Saens is architectural; Pelleas hasn’t got any self-contained numbers ect ect (I realise I'm teaching my grandmother to suck eggs...). Maybe worth making clear that it’s a French tradition, rather than the French tradition?
    • I have to tread a bit carefully here: I think what I have written accurately reflects what Rushton says, whereas what you suggest – though I think it correct – isn't quite what he says. – Tim riley talk 20:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to say the paragraph beginning ‘Berlioz’s compositional techniques’ is pure TR: packed with info, yet concise and clear.
  • When you mention “Romeo's arrival at the Capulets' vault” I suspect you feel that naming the work would be a statement of the bleeding obvious, but I think it’s a bit odd as you haven’t yet done so in the Works section. Ignore at will.

Symphonies

  • Might ‘the classical pattern established and continued by German composers and those who followed their traditions’ be simplified to: ‘the classical pattern of the German tradition’?
  • ‘Tell a narrative’ - I'm not sure that verb belongs. I can see you’re avoiding ‘tell a story’, which you use in the next para. Unfold? Recount?
    • You have an exasperating knack of homing in on the bits of my prose that I have sucked my teeth about. I was never quite happy with this, but couldn't think how to improve it. I'll try "recount a narrative", but that doesn't strike me as ideal either. – Tim riley talk 20:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ’described by the musicologist Mark Evan Bonds as a work traditionally seen as…’ is a bit of a mouthful. Maybe snip 'traditionally seen as'?
    • Again, I am trying to be faithful to the source: what you suggest is crisper, but implies that Bonds has signed up to the idea, which I don't think he specifically does.
  • Could the para on Harold be trimmed - maybe one too many assessments (interesting though they all are)?
  • Same point re Roméo.
  • Footnoting the Chabrier comment is very funny - but (reluctantly) shouldn’t it be translated?
    • Well, I suppose it should be translated if we apply the MoS strictly, but nobody else has suggested it so far (perhaps they are too nice-minded) and I am inclined to think that the wording of the main text makes it clear enough to the most obdurate non-Francophone that the one word is a rude one. If there's a consensus for a change I'll go along with it, but I'll resist if I can. – Tim riley talk 20:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I read ‘for giant wind and brass band’ I momentarily wondered what you meant by giant wind. Maybe reverse them?
    • Indeed. Giant wind is not a wholly alluring proposition. I'll redraw as you suggest.

Operas

  • Maybe add a few words giving the subject-matter of Benvenuto Cellini to save the reader having to follow the link? You could nick ‘inspired by the memoirs of the Florentine sculptor’ from the linked article.

More later. This article is superb. Even by your standards. Dmass (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these points and your kind words of encouragement. Looking forward to more comments, though I am conscious of other calls on your time, e.g. earning a living. – Tim riley talk 20:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Picking up from:

Choral

  • ‘… necessitating larger ensembles than sufficed for the concert hall’ - perhaps plainer language might do: ‘calling for larger ensembles than were needed in the concert hall’?

Mélodies

  • First para: ‘group’ instead of ‘grouping’?
    • My reason for choosing "grouping" was that the songs in Les nuits d'été were not conceived as a cycle and were grouped together after they were written, but perhaps this is not a distinction that needs making here. I'll prune. 14:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • ‘originally for voice and piano, later orchestrated, and now usually heard in the latter form’ might be tightened to: ‘originally for voice and piano but now usually heard in its later, orchestrated form’.

Prose

Changing reputation

Recordings

  • The von Otter recording of Nuits is from 1999 and Gens from 2001 so maybe not ‘recent’ – perhaps Karen Cargill (2013) and Susan Graham (2014), both of which I think were well reviewed. Nice to see PB in your list of fantastiques…

The Notes are a joy in their own right. I see that another kind editor is going to look at Sources so I will leave that. That’s me done, except to say again Congratulations. A pleasure to read and I’ve learnt a lot. Wholeheartedly support. Dmass (talk) 09:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Excellent comments, and your support is most gratefully received. Tim riley talk 14:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ceoil

[edit]

As I said at the PR, this is first rate and has opened my horizons. Will certainly support with some suggestions;

  • lead: hybrid genres Non-specialists are not to know what this means.
    • In conversation one would say they're neither one thing nor the other, but that's a bit informal. Suggestions for saying so more formally will be welcome.
      • We have an article cross-genres. With electronic music (my area) we say 'blending of genres', which is very informal indeed, and hardly "neither one thing nor the other" - its a deliberate crossing over, but none the less but some such construct might avoid the off-putting 1930s SF futurist word "hybrid", which makes me think of tentacles on the one hand and overt cold intellectualism (or even smooth jazz) on the other. Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vary opening para structures: there are more, but "In 1824 Berlioz composed" is followed by "In August 1826 Berlioz was admitted" (both from 1824–1830: Conservatoire student)
  • In the same year he made the first of his four attempts to win France's premier music prize - That year... the first of four.
  • Keen to read Shakespeare in the original, Berlioz started learning English in 1828. - Keen to read Shakespeare in the original, Berlioz began to study English in 1828. Dont like "keen" unexplained, I assume there was a career objective.
  • Beethoven became both an ideal and an obstacle for Berlioz - was both an ideal and obstacle; while I know what you mean it seems labored and could be teased out better.
  • Some hard to follow logic: "At around the same time he encountered two further creative inspirations: he heard Beethoven's third, fifth and seventh symphonies performed at the Conservatoire,{{refn|The Conservatoire concerts were conducted by François Habeneck, whom Berlioz honoured for introducing the Beethoven symphonies to French audiences, but with whom he later fell out over Habeneck's conducting of works by Berlioz. and he read Goethe's Faust in Gérard de Nerval's translation. - can we simplify.
  • I see tense issues throughout: to take an eg: "Paganini, known chiefly as a violinist, had acquired a Stradivarius viola, which he wanted to play in public if he could find the right music." I suggest settling on one, or reducing to constructs such as "the violinist Paganini acquired a Stradivarius viola".
    • I think, in that instance at any rate, the tenses are right. P had already got the viola when the suggestion came up that B might write something for him to play on it.
  • Beware of excessive detail, for eg between December 1842 and the end of May 1843
  • The section beginning with "The last of Berlioz's operas" (in "Operas") is top heavy with quotes that might be paraphrased.
  • In "Changing reputation", the phrase One important reason seems to break the fourth wall. I say this as somebody who was first attracted this website by Geogre, but times have changed.
    • You've lost me here, I'm afraid. I'm not sure what you mean by breaking the fourth wall. Tim riley talk
      • It seems to me like from the transcript to a lecture - maybe i'm odd or stupid, and both are probable, but "An important reason" seems more the wiki voice. 21:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
        • I'm still unsure what alternative wording you would prefer here. Any suggestions?
  • As more and more Berlioz works became widely available on record: "as his works became more wide available on..." to avoid "more and more".
  • A milestone in the reappraisal of Berlioz's reputation came in 1957, when for the first time a professional opera company staged the original version of The Trojans in a single evening - "The reappraisal of Berlioz's reputation came in 1957 when the first professional staging...". 'when for the first time' isn't right either, ad this seems like a simplification. Surely the staging was the culmination of many factors.
  • Northcott concluded, "Berlioz still" - Northcott concluded that, and no comma
  • By 1963 Cairns, viewing Berlioz's greatness as now firmly established - greatness? If 1963 is established, we dont need to say "now"
  • Among the milestones in the subsequent Berlioz discography are the recordings conducted by Colin Davis - not sure why "subsequent" is needed here. Is it just referring to all extant recorded material? "milestones" is management speak.
  • By the 1950s the critical climate - "critical climate" is not ideal. Critical opinion?
  • In recent decades Berlioz has been widely regarded as a great composer - vague - either "today" or "Since recent decade x". Maybe replace "has been" with "is".
    • With WP:DATED in mind I shy away from "today" (though it is certainly correct), and B's widespread acceptance into the pantheon (though not, alas, the Panthéon) can't be pinned down to a particular decade. What I've written is a fudge, but a necessary one, I think. Tim riley talk 13:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I cant formulate anything better than "In recent decades", and also, yes "today" is euff. ok. Ceoil (talk)
  • Nevertheless, Northcott was writing about Davis's "Berlioz Odyssey", consisting of seventeen concerts of Berlioz's music, featuring all the major works, a prospect unimaginable in earlier decades of the century.[197][198] - tense issues & and don't like "was writing", construct is a bit confusing for a thick paddy like me. The tense issue is not helped by the following sentence: "Northcott concluded, "Berlioz still seems so immediate"
  • All of Berlioz's major works and most of his minor ones have been recorded for LP or CD - "All of Berlioz's major and most of his minor works". Can we say "recorded on" (strictly speaking its 'transferred to') and its 'vinyl' rather than LP if we are distinguishing vs CD, which usually can play longer than LP, if you catch me drift. Plus vinyl is mistily cool, and does imply long play (vs. a 45) - Berlioz didn't release top 20 singles that I am aware of.

That's about it; you are free, Tim, to disagree at will. Apologies for my tardy detailed response; work related "events" got the better of me. Ceoil (talk) 03:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, the only reason I bring there things up is flow; keeping reader engagement. reader attention these days is fleeting, and an off word can cause a person to click out. obv you are superior at this; my suggestions were thick paddy suggestions only, rather from a technical POV, and have enjoyed the back and fourth. Ceoil (talk) 01:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and Support by KJP1

[edit]

Having had my, very limited, say on this at PR, I'm pleased to pick up the Source Review. It'll take a couple of days. Usual excellent stuff, by the way. KJP1 (talk) 07:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References
  • Have checked the accessible online refs., 72, 121, 127, 132, 148, 152, 158, 162, 166, 186, 196, 197, 200 and 203. All work and all support the content. My only queries relate to 196 and 202. 196 takes me to the search engine for Operabase and, for some reason, I can't make it search for 2017-2020 performances of Les Troyens. I also wonder whether running to 2020 isn't a little Wikipedia:CRYSTAL. But perhaps not really an issue as I'm assuming the works are scheduled and are likely to go ahead. Mind you, so was Covent Garden in 1940! Re. 202, I'm sure this is fine, but I don't think I seen the Worldcat entries used as ref.s like this before. But they do support the content.
    • Operabase: The blighters revamped the site a few days after I first started using it for this article. The new improved site, as usual in such matters, doesn't work as well as the old one, or doesn't so far, at any rate. I've sent them an email and hope the info will be restored, failing which I'll revisit this statement in the article. I can't think of any alternative source for it. Tim riley talk 09:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Citations of CDs: I could flesh this out in the citation if wanted, on the lines of "Name of Work, Decca 2010 recording OCLC XXXXXXX". Would that be preferable? Tim riley talk 09:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cannot check the online subscription ref.s, nor the offline book/journal sources, but they all appear appropriately cited and the nominator isn't one for whom spot checks are required.
Sources
  • All appear to be appropriately cited. I'm sure I've raised it before, but is the Earl of Harewood better given as EofH or George Lascelles? Also, he's Lord Harewood in Note 22.
    • He should certainly be Harewooded and not Lascellesed. He signed himself "Harewood". I don't deal with all that many earls (though I used to work for one, years ago) but my practice, which I think is the norm, is to say "The Earl of Thingummy" at first mention and then "Lord Thingummy" later, and I think "the Earl of Harewood" would look odd in note 22. But he can be "the Earl of Harewood" or "Lord Harewood" throughout if wanted. Tim riley talk 09:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
External links
  • Find a Grave - I don't think it's doing any harm, but this site's not considered a reliable source as it's user-driven.
    • Truth to tell I hadn't spotted it was there. I must take care to check external links. It's right enough in this case, mind you: I've visited Berlioz's grave, but the reference can of course be removed if you prefer. Tim riley talk 09:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very little indeed to quibble with and impressively researched and sourced. Pleased to Support (on the basis of the SR and the earlier PR). Apologies for the delay in completing. KJP1 (talk) 07:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review and for your support, KJP. Greatly obliged. Tim riley talk 09:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you, Wehwalt, for your input at PR and your support here. Both are greatly valued. Tim riley talk 09:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to weigh back in to associate myself with Indrian's excellent review and thoughtful comments, in their entirety.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Support From Indrian

[edit]
  • "A romantic in his personal life as well as in his art" - I am afraid I have to agree with Tony here (don't worry, this will not be a theme). While a cute turn of phrase, it is misleading in its application of the term "romantic" in two different definitions.
  • "It was he rather than she" - This feels awkward to me, and I think we could word this in a way that gets rid of the "it was" while still conveying the meaning.
  • "he later had flute and guitar lessons" - I think we can find a more interesting verb than "had" in this instance.
    • Any suggestions? "Had" seems the natural construction to me. See my comment on Plain Words, below. Tim riley talk 20:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe "took"? In this case the simplicity of the verb does not bother me so much as the phrase "had lessons" feels wrong to my ear, though it may be a British versus American English thing. If "had lessons" is considered normal in British English, then perhaps we can leave it be. Indrian (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He later contended that this was an advantage" - "That" is unnecessary.
  • "At the age of twelve Berlioz fell in love for the first time" - This introductory clause is right on the borderline of a mandatory comma, so I did not put one in myself as I sometimes do in these reviews, but when I read it aloud it does feel like a pause is appropriate after said clause.
    • There are distinct differences in the international varieties of English on this point. I notice that my American colleagues are much keener on commas in such places, even in simple sentences such as "On Monday comma she went out." When BrE writers use them it is usually to avoid ambiguity. The example I often use is "On first reading Joyce, Beckett was excited", where the comma removes the fleeting thought that there is someone called Joyce Beckett. I don't know how many BrE writers would want to put a comma in this sentence about HB. Few, I think. Tim riley talk 20:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I called it borderline, so will defer to your judgment. Commas are certainly a tool for avoiding ambiguity, but I think us Americans also use them to indicate natural pauses in the flow of a thought such as might occur when one is giving a speech. Indrian (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "made it clearer" - Again, not at all incorrect, but can we avoid "made"?
  • "The first concert of Berlioz's music was given in May 1828" - Passive voice.
  • "The hall was far from full, and Berlioz lost money, but he was greatly encouraged by the applause from musicians in the audience, including his Conservatoire professors, the directors of the Opéra and Opéra-Comique, and the composers Auber and Hérold, and by the vociferous approval of the performers." - This sentence is long and a bit tortured, with three independent clauses joined by conjunctions and a list within a list. If there is a good way to break this up a bit, I would encourage you to do so.
  • "Berlioz's fascination with Shakespeare's plays prompted him to start learning English during 1828, to let him read them in the original." - "so he could read" maybe"? "Let" just feels awkward here.
  • "Until the end of 1835 Berlioz had a modest stipend" - I am once again not a fan of "had" in this context.
  • "Although he complained – both privately and sometimes in his articles" - Not sure that the qualifier "sometimes" is strictly necessary here.
  • Should "bêtes noires" be italicized as a foreign phrase? I am seeing contradictory information on this.
    • Me too. Of the five style guides on my shelves. I make the score 3:2 in favour of not italicising. If writing on my own account, and not for Wikipedia, I should unhesitatingly italicise it, but I'm an old fogey who has only recently stopped writing "première" and still capitalises "Lieder" (but not here, of course). Tim riley talk 20:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to hold off on supporting this article until these concerns are addressed, but would emphasize that they are all minor, and a few of them are stylistic preference rather than imperative correction. While I normally refrain from commenting on the reviews of others, I feel it important in this instance to go on the record to agree with Tony that this is a well-written piece only slightly marred by a handful of minor issues, but to disagree vehemently with his assertion that his stylistic preferences should dictate how the article is written. Therefore, I do not find his oppose in this matter, nor his defamation of fellow editors, to be particularly helpful to the process. Indrian (talk) 18:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic remarks
You're telling blatant lies, further suggesting that the FAC process is becoming increasingly corrupted—by several editors here, User:Indrian. First, where is my assertion that my "stylistic preferences should dictate how the article is written", please? And where have I defamed fellow editors? I wrote that I am not this nominator's lickspittle or sycophant. I. Don't twist what I say. Your claims are themselves defamatory. Tony (talk) 00:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, you are clearly an accomplished writer and editor with a firm grasp of the English language and much to offer on the critique of Wikipedia articles. You have, however, blown through the project like a hurricane since your return from a self-imposed exile, which I am sure you are clever enough to have noticed without me pointing it out.
As an editor of long standing, you are also well aware of the article history function, granting anyone who cares to look awareness of how you changed a support to an oppose here merely because Tim riley failed to enact or fully engage with all your proposed changes to the article, which is pretty much the text book definition of attempting to "dictate how the article is written." Others have already provided examples drawn from your recommendations that evince personal preference, so I will not retread that ground. I will note, however, that you have declared on this very page those who have rejected said recommendations are uncaring towards the readers of the project -- a defamatory statement if I have ever seen one -- and lickspittles for the nominator (and yes Tony, you did not call out any specific individual by name as a lickspittle or sycophant, but we are smart enough to parse the innuendo that you are equally too intelligent to have cultivated by accident).
I honestly believe most of your suggestions across FAC have been solid, even a few that Tim riley chose not to enact here, but I know few people who like the idea of an editor, no matter how erudite or insightful, proclaiming his positions like Moses descending from the Mount. Your attitude comes off as entitled and superior, and I am not close to the first person to point this out. I think you would find many editors far more receptive to your highly salient points if they did not come off as a sermon. It might also help if you showed enough engagement with the process to progress beyond the lead on more than a handful of the articles that you review. That you lash out at many who grow tired of this behavior as bullies, tricksters, and corrupters only worsens a tense situation that need not exist in the first place. Just the two cents of one lickspittle who is apparently out to subvert the FAC process. Indrian (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly lies and exaggerations. Tony (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I shall enjoy working through these points. I have a more general grammatical point I'd like to discuss, but I'll set it out on your talk page, if I may, rather than clog this review with it. More on the above tomorrow, I hope. Tim riley talk 19:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't resist looking in, and then, of course, got drawn into looking at all your points. Actioned, or not, as outlined above. Some v. good points there: thank you. Tim riley talk 20:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those few trouble spots flow much better now. I am largely satisfied, with just a handful of rejoinders above. I expect to be supporting quite soon. Indrian (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And we are good here. I will happily support. It was a pleasure working with you. Indrian (talk) 21:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Indrian. I heartily reciprocate those sentiments. I don't think we've run across each other before, but I hope to do so again. Tim riley talk 22:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

[edit]

Thank you for expanding another fascinating composer. I planned to come to the PR but it was over before I got to it. Minor remarks only:

Lead

  • "choral pieces" sounds a bit too small for his Requiem, - I'd understand it for anthems and motets.
    • An accurate description, I think. In Rushton's analytic works it is put under that category. The Cambridge Companion to Berlioz groups them under "Religious works", but that does not feel quite comfortable a category for Berlioz, an agnostic: how truly religious his works are is open to question.
  • Native French speakers told me that it should be (or rather: has to be) "Le Damnation de Faust".
    • If so, they are wrong. The gender of "damnation" is feminine and not masculine, and as to capitalisation, there is no standard French usage for such titles. The version here is the more common, I think, although the version you quote is also often seen. Kern uses the capital, Grove and Rushton the lower case, Cairns and Barzun both give the title in English (as I was much tempted to do were our WP article not titled "La damnation de Faust").
  • "Symphonie fantastique, in which an idealised depiction of her occurs throughout" - I wonder if the clause is lead material, because it seems too short to describe the complexity of the work, and can't be longer, or would be undue weight. If anything short, isn't it rather a depiction of his feelings for her, than of her?
    • I think the text here accurately reflects the sources, and to my mind it would be odd not to mention the matter briefly in the lead.
  • "he wrote musical journalism" - it may be my lack of language, but it sounds strange to me. I'd understand "he worked as a music jounalist", "he wrote for the musical press", or saying precisely what he wrote.
    • Idiomatic BrE, I think. And AmE, too, I presume, as several AmE writers have been happy with it at PR and here.
      • Thank you, learned a new phrase then. --GA

Early years

  • Why the redirect Roman Catholic Church, when Catholic Church would suffice?
    • The reader won't be affected, but this is for the sake of strict accuracy. The RC is not the only catholic church. See the Nicene Creed, used by other catholic and apostolic churches.
      • Do I understand right that you take La damnation de Faust because our article has it, but not Catholic Church although our article has it? --GA
        • I don't think my religious scruples need airing here; I think the title of the RC Church article is incorrect, but I don't make a song and dance about it. I'm not dogmatic about following the titles of WP articles when mentioning the relevant works: following Barzun, Holoman and Cairns, I have used "Harold in Italy" although our article on it is headed "Harold en Italie", which in fifty years of knowing the piece I can't remember being used by any English speaker. I could be persuaded that we should have "The Damnation of Faust" in English too, as Cairns and Barzun do: one hears the title given in both languages in Britain, but a spot of Googling suggests that the French title is the more frequently used, which is why I stuck with it here. A similar consideration applies to Roméo et Juliette and Les Troyens to some extent. Cairns even translates the Fantastic Symphony, which looks rather odd to my eye. Tim riley talk 12:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, the question wasn't about religion ;) - For titles of music, I'd tend to go with the original, especially in an article about its creator. I religiously believe that we can't say that Wagner composed The Flying Dutchman (and convinced the FA writer in the FAC), while we can say that The Flying Dutchman was performed, suggesting "in English" by saying so.
  • Can we get a c. dating for his father's portrait without clicking on it?
    • I haven't seen one. Cairns prints the picture but doesn't date it. If it is OK for Cairns without the date I think we can reasonably follow suit.
    • After a bit of investigation I still can't give a date for the picture that I feel sure about, and I'd prefer not to put one in the caption unless I'm confident about it. Tim riley talk 10:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wonder where "c. 1840" in our file comes from then? --GAI
        • I'm afraid I can't answer that. I uploaded the picture, and obviously I'm sure I didn't just invent the date, but where I got it from I cannot now remember, or discover by this morning's digging. Tim riley talk 12:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For quotations, such as "saved me from the tyranny of keyboard habits ...", I'd like to have the French original, at least in a footnote, when it's not available in an online source. (I don't trust translators.)
    • I agree about translations, and when I am writing for WP I include the ipsissima verba in a footnote if I am offering my own translation, but this one is from David Cairns's translation of the memoirs, as the citation makes clear.
      • I'd still like the flavour of the original, but accept. --GA
  • "The dominance of Italian opera in Paris, against which Berlioz later campaigned, was still in the future" - The why say it at this point?
    • This is where the source mentions it, and I agree that it is appropriate here: there was Rossini on offer, but the repertoire was largely French at this point. We touch on the Italian opposition again later, and this prepares the context.
  • "Royal Chapel" - is a link possible?
    • I looked for one when drafting, but concluded that there was no helpful one available. The chapel was part of the Tuileries Palace but has no separate article, and I think a link there would be more irritating than enlightening for readers.

More to come, need sleep. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your replies, learning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conservatoire student

  • I am not too happy about the header in French + English, but you will have your reasons.
    • No worries on that point: "conservatoire has long been absorbed into the English language. The OED cites examples of Anglophone use for local music colleges as far back as the 1930s. I have a strong feeling it is now more usual than "conservatory" in this context, though I cannot positively assert that. Tim riley talk 19:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I confess that I had forgotten that his first opera was linked two sections before, and believe that a second link here, where he actually writes it, might be excused?
    • Sometimes I find Wikipedia's rules on links very unhelpful to readers. If you continue to read this article you will pass through at least half-a-dozen places where I'd have liked to put a duplicate link to help the reader. We seem to have established by custom and practice an unofficial dispensation in life & works articles to have a link from the life and another from the works, but I don't think I am comfortable with pushing that any further. Tim riley talk 19:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • link counterpoint? - or will all readers who got this far know?

Prix de Rome

  • "Le retour à la vie (The Return to Life, later renamed Lélio)" - please teach me. I am used to either give an English title in brackets, in Italics and title case, if such a title exists, or a simple translation, in sentence case (The return to life).
    • I am in no position to teach anybody. I haven't found any MoS guidance on this point, and have just done my best. The present renditions are clear enough, I think, though I am not opposed to another style if others prefer it. Tim riley talk 19:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • He wrote "the poetic memories formed from my wanderings in Abruzzi", - I suggest to not use the quote but reword, for two reasons, 1) to avoid third person in the beginning vs. first person in the quote, 2) to avoid a link from a quote, and a strange one, because the link goes to a region Abruzzo, and the plural appears nowhere in that article, not even for the mountains, and Abruzzi (disambiguation) is also no help. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paris

Struggling

Works first section fine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these points. I'll wait for any more and then deal with them together. Tim riley talk 19:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had little time, and am in the process of writing a GA (BWV 214).

Symphonies

  • "but the work tells a story, graphically and specifically" - curious what "graphically" and "specifically" mean here.
  • link Idée fixe, perhapas to Leitmotif (interesting word, - in German it would be Leitmotiv)? Yes, it's linked in the previous section, but will everybody read sequentially?
  • "is the composer's idealised (and in the last movement caricatured) portrait of Harriet Smithson" - for those who don't remember from the lead, the phrase in brackets seems a bit too long until we get to the main term.
  • I have no idea how Schumann's quote may have been in German, and the Lambert one is rather pale. Is that all great minds said about this work?
  • same question about the Harold, - is "romantic and picturesque" any specific? "among the greatest works of its kind in the 19th century" says about nothing after we learned that it's one-of-a-kind.
  • link to Shakespeare's drama (even if everybody should know it)? - Past midnight here, more to come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This has come up above. I'd prefer not to link it, but will do so if that is what people prefer.

Operas

Choral

Mélodies

  • Some readers arriving here may not know that mélodies are French art songs. Use the term with a link?
    • Unfortunately there is no mention of "mélodies" in the text from which I can link. To do so from "the 33 Mélodies" would be misleading for readers, I think, we are not allowed to link from headers, and unaccented "melodies" in the text refer to the tunes rather than to the French genre.
  • Warrack considers up to a dozen songs from the 33 Mélodies well worth exploring. "Among them are some masterpieces." - Reading that, the two sentences look unconnected.

Prose

Reputation ...

  • I added some interlanguage links (which will turn blue).

Done. Begun on Armistice Day, ended on Britten's birthday. Sorry for only mentioning points for improvement, while I could praise the whole effort, loving quotes such as "Berlioz still seems so immediate, so controversial, so ever-new". I had the great pleasure of Les Troyens in Frankfurt, "DYK ... that mezzo-soprano Claudia Mahnke appeared as Dido in Les Troyens by Berlioz, and according to a reviewer, in the final 25 minutes convincingly ranged from hurt vulnerability to furious despair?". I decorated my talk on St. Cecilia's day, was just a bit too late for Britten's Op. 2. - Thank you for listening. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments acted on or not as above. Thank you for your comments. Tim riley talk 18:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, like the opera scene image and much else. Support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:31, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

His biographies I find a ref for the first book-length bio being by Mirecourt here, however, can't find that book among the author's writings. Did I miss something, or was it just one his weekly biographies about Les Contemporains (2nd series). Just curious. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do you feel about making the Holoman - which seems to be availble online - accessible, instead of a subscription required source? A colleague would link every single page, - I normally link only the beginning of a relevant chapter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have had problems in the past with Google books being available to readers in some countries but not others. In Britain, for instance, only selected chunks of the Holoman book are available on Google. I'd be reluctant to point people in the direction of an online source not everyone can access. As to the Mirecourt biography, Cairns also mentions it, describing it as sympathetic but factually unreliable. It was published in 1856 in a series called "Contemporains", but this is probably too much information for the article, given the passing nature of the mention. Tim riley talk 17:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I had no problems with online books, and if not accessible, readers are at the same point as if not given, so I'd would still provide it. But it's you to decide here. I suggest to simply drop "book-length" as misleading, - his publications have elsewhere rather characterized as pamphlets. Berlioz is not on Wikisource, but others are, such as George Sand. - If in doubt about it being realy the first it could be "an early bio". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Shall do as you suggest about Mirecourt and will ponder about a link to the Google version of the book. Tim riley talk 20:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think perhaps the best thing is to add a single link to the book in the Sources section, annotated so that nobody is led to expect complete access from anywhere in the world to the article. I'll have a scout round for a suitable form of words - this general point must surely have come up before. Tim riley talk 23:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a link to the Google site, albeit with some misgivings, but fingers crossed. Tim riley talk 19:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'm not used to link to the cover, but readers will be able to take it from there, searching. - What I normally do is a link to one page, then a reader can simply change the page number to arrive at a different page. In my latest GA, for example, that's books.google.de/books?id=m9JuwslMcq4C&pg=PA820, and the other pages (such as 102) can be inserted instead of 820. Some of them don't show in the preview, but others do. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Graham Beards

[edit]

Oppose. Tony made some reasonable and actionable comments, which were dismissed in an offhand way by the nominator who implied that they require a consensus. Tony even offered a solution to one of the problems. The nominator's response was deplorable; He wrote "Oh, get you!", which to my ear is tantamount to homophobic - all that was missing was "ducky". Since when have actionable positive, critical comments required a consensus? Never in my tenure as an FAC delegate. The nominator should address Tony's comments directly, and apologise to him. This is not the way we conduct a FAC! Graham Beards (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Since this is a comment on the discussion rather than the qualities of the article, is it not an unactionable oppose? ——SerialNumber54129 15:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amused to find myself, as a gay man, accused of homophobia.
  • Some of the suggestions referred to were later backed by other reviewers and have therefore been adopted, some time ago, though I did not, myself, favour them. Tim riley talk 08:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Tim, just for the sake of clarity, would it be worth noting within Tony's comments which ones have now been actioned? It may be that Graham's concerns on the presumed lack of action on the comments are allayed when it is clearer which ones have been settled and which ones are—in your opinion—not beneficial to the article. It can't hurt to note which ones have been closed down. My regards to you both. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your helpful suggestion, SchroCat. I have done as you suggest. All of Tony1's comments have been addressed once again. Tim riley talk 22:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MOD

[edit]

I've really enjoyed reading the article and it is mostly beautifully written. Commenting on prose; 17 instances of "although" seem too many, and some of these could be elided or replaced with "but". until she finally accepted him seven years later might be as good without the "finally". Should Jean-François Le Sueur's last name be capitalised when not beginning a sentence? --MarchOrDie (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for those points:
  • I'll have a trawl through the text for "although"s. "But" will sometimes do as well, and I'll change those.
  • I agree one should be sparing with adverbs, but I think the "finally" serves a helpful function here, emphasising the elapse of years.
  • Le Sueur is an orthographic curiosity: many sources run the two parts of his surname together as Lesueur, others capitalise him as here. I haven't found any instances of "le Sueur" on English or French sites or in the six books that are the main sources for the current text (Barzun, Bloom, Cairns, Holoman, Macdonald and Rushton). As there is no consensus on the point in the various sources I have stuck to the capitalisation used in Le Sueur's WP article.

Many thank for your kind remarks. Tim riley talk 08:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Just a note that I can see we appear to have consensus to promote, I'll just want some time to take my habitual walk through the article and double-check that points have indeed been actioned before closing -- hopefully in the next 24h. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hector_Berlioz/archive1&oldid=1242254757"