Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Osbert Parsley/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) 12 October 2022 [1].

Osbert Parsley

[edit]
Nominator(s): Amitchell125 (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the English composer, organist and 'singing man' Osbert Parsley, whose 50-year-long musical career at Norwich Cathedral spanned the reigns of four Tudor monarchs—Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary, and Elizabeth. The article has received a peer review—and all comments on how to promote another of my Norfolk heroes to FA would be very welcome. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Nordovicum_(Map_of_Norwich,_1581).jpg: under US law reproductions of 2D works don't garner a new copyright - this needs a tag for the original work. Ditto File:Parsley's_Clock.png
Done, please advise if done incorrectly. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Information on Wikimedia Commons amended to reflect the fact that I made the file myself using Musescore. Hope this helps. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so then this too is missing a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, please advise if done incorrectly. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been added for the intermediate work (IMSLP); I'm looking for a tag for the original work (the original composition). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Amitchell125: - Have you been able to get this licensing bit worked out? Hog Farm Talk 03:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: - Yes, I think it's now done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Observations by WereSpielChequers

[edit]

The prose is fine and thanks for indulging my queries, though some sort of link for the first occurrence of the word motet would help those like me who are unfamiliar with it. ϢereSpielChequers 12:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The damage done was never completely restored by Edward's successors Mary and Elizabeth" is an interesting but not entirely neutral take on the reformation and counter reformation in England. A more conventional approach to the subject is that Mary attempted to reverse the changes under Edward, but at the end of her brief reign their half sister Elizabeth confirmed or reinstated some of Edward's work.
Sorted, I believe. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the context of the English Reformation, it would be relevant if possible to mention which of his compositions, extant or destroyed, were in accord with Roman Catholicism or early Anglicanism or indeed both.
I'll look to see if any of the sources provide this information. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Much appreciated. ϢereSpielChequers 00:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Morehen came up with some relevant information regarding your point, and I've amended the Compositions text accordingly. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the restricted compass of the top part" no doubt makes sense to anyone with more than a passing acquaintance with the subject. But is there a way to say this that caters for a general audience that includes people as ignorant of music as myself?
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Getting married in his late forties was likely unusual for his era, has anyone conjectured that this indicates he was likely a monk? Especially if his wedding was after Elizabeth's accession - 1558 was a rather significant year. ϢereSpielChequers 16:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, Boston (1963) p32-33 speculates about Parsley's possible monastic life before the Dissolution. He notes that Parsley becomes a singing man in 1535, three years before the Dissolution. he then goes on to suggest that Parsley was:
  • either a layman who assisted the monks, saying there is nothing to suggest this could be wrong;
  • or he was a novice. In Boston's view there is no evidence he was a priest, so he wasn't, but he could possibly have been a novice who may have been prevented from taking holy orders, and so became a singing man.
This is imo all speculation by someone writing nearly 60 years ago, so I didn't include it in the article. Do you suggest any of this could be included? No other sources come close to speculating that Parsley might have been a monk. or why he married in 1558. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is speculation centuries after the event, and we only know the year of the marriage, not whether it took place under Mary or Elizabeth. Marriage involving those previously in holy orders was a way to clearly take a side in the reformation and counter reformation. If Boston is still seen as an authority on the subject then I think it would be reasonable to say that "Boston has conjectured that .......". ϢereSpielChequers 00:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Some minor points on the prose:

  • Life and musical career
  • "the identity of his parents or place of birth are unknown" – "x or y" needs a singular verb, rather than the plural one here. Alternatively, "or" should be "and".
  • "He was appointed a 'singing man'" – unclear why single, rather than the normal double, quotes are used here.
  • "conjectured that Parsley was either hired by the cathedral monks to assist them as a layman chorister, or he was possibly a novice monk" – the prose might flow better without the superfluous "he".
All sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later life
  • " ‘gifts’ from the cathedral" – more single quotes, and curly ones to boot.
  • "Te Deum" – unclear why there are quotation marks (here and later in the text). We usually give generic titles like this without quotes (or italicisation).
All sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Death and commemoration
  • "during an Evensong service" – the OED doesn't capitalise "evensong" and nor does Chambers.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Composing career
  • "Parsley's instrumental music, nearly all for viols, survives" – Does this mean some of his instrumental music or all of it? (It would be a bold claim four hundred years later that everything OP wrote in that line remains intact.)
  • "Peter Phillips … noted that "Parsley can be remembered as one of those men who just once conjured up a masterpiece, as it seems to us now, from nowhere". A nice phrase, but it isn't clear which one of Parsley's works Phillips is talking about.
All done. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my few comments. I hope they are of use. Tim riley talk 18:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley, per the coordinator comment below, perhaps you have a support or oppose for this nomination? Aza24 (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So sorry to have overlooked this. My few quibbles have been properly attended to and I'm happy to support. An intriguing article that seems to me to meet all the FAC criteria. Tim riley talk 20:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable further attention over the next four or five days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aza24

[edit]

Comments

[edit]
  • "His instrumental music, nearly all for viols, including six consort pieces, written in a style that combines both of his Latin and English vocal styles" - there is no active verb in this sentence. I presume the word "was" is missing before "written".....?
Thanks, now sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the identity of his parents or place of birth is unknown" => "the identity of his parents and his place of birth are unknown"
Done (also, see comment from Tim riley above). Amitchell125 (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A decade later the master of the choirboys and the choirmen was being paid at the same rate" - the same as each other? or the same as one of the amounts in the previous sentence? If so, which one?
@ChrisTheDude: - Text amended, please let me know if anything needs to be clarified any further. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

[edit]

Interested! As usual I'll skip the lead, and comment as I read. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TOC

Life ...

  • Image: I sort of like the large image but have seen others avoiding anything higher than upright=1.3.
    Image resized. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought that "parish" is a common term that needs no link.
    It's often thought so, but there's a complex history and much interest involved it. For instance in England alone, Norwich had dozens of parishes (one for each church), whereas whole parts of Yorkshire had only one, containing many churches dispersed over a wide geographical area. I'd prefer to keep the links in. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from a man named John Hering and his wife Helen" - I believe that Henry is male enough a name to simply say "from John Hering and his wife Helen" which sounds a bit fairer to me.
    Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In chronology, he would first be a choir boy, then a singing man, than get married. I was surprised by reading about his will and only then about choir boy.
    Now sorted, hopefully. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know what made him "probably ... unofficial organist" for 50 years?
    The cathedral management would have had overall control, but no one person or group is named in the sources, unfortunately.Amitchell125 (talk) 08:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Later life

Composing career

Agreed, now done. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Music for voices

Recordings

  • I wonder why this table has a header, but not the others.
    Header now removed (the table was added by another editor). Amitchell125 (talk) 11:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we have a bit about performers, and perhaps even reviews that say something about the music?
I'll look to see what there is. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had a good look, and found nothing notable, mainly because Parsley's music appears in compilations that include other, often more famous composers, and the performance of his works is gets noticed. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving lead for after sleep. Thank you for the article, - I had no idea of the man and his music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After more sleep than I thought: the lead. Some things are the same as in the prose, such as please link Morning Service, for readers around the globe who are unfamiliar with Anglican church music. As for the order: I could imagine 1) chorister service, 2) rulers, 3) style, 4) Memorial plaque. I wonder if we could have a bit about today's performances of his music, but this is for lead and prose. Are his church works regularly part of services, or sometimes, or rarely? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, apart from the query about modern performances of his music, which needs researching. I'll see what I can find. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now done. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I found in a quick search was this, - please sift if anything is useful:

Still lead, having looked again:

  • "English Renaissance composer and singer", - singer is such a general term, - how about saying at this point that he was a singer at the Norwich Cathedral, the place where his life was focused? Singer could be someone performing ballads ;)
Changed singer to 'chorister', which is what he was. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest to not leave his other names to a footnote alone, but present them bold in the lead, to tell readers who knw him by a different name that they still arrived at the right spot. I'd do that in the first para, but not immediately. A second para could say that we don't know much about his life. It's normal in FAs to have the first para as a summary of it all. - Please (very generally): when responding to a bullet, repeat the bullet, when responding to whatever indenting, repeat whatever indenting, as outlined on top of User talk:Drmies. It helps readers who use a screenreader. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion about removing the note on alternative surnames for Parsley. There are now redirect pages for all his alternative names (these are rarely encountered, so I don't want to clutter the lead section with them). I have followed the procedure I have found used at other FA people with difficult names to transcribe). Amitchell125 (talk) 16:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After more sleep: how about an infobox? Other cathedral organists have one, see Stephen Cleobury, for example. Yes, he was a composer, but he was also a singer, and a person ;) (I never understood anyway why composers are somewhat special in that respect.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll consider your suggestion, but I'm not an infobox fan, and none of the other reviewers have ever brought the matter up. As far as I am aware, they are not compulsory at FA. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They are not compulsory, but we could still offer some easy access for readers from all the languages where Parsley is not covered. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your suggestion Gerda, but I would rather an infobox was not included. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the changes above. I'd still support, even without infobox, once the other points are done, but feel that you speak about your personal preference, not how it would be detrimental for a reader. Just for information, I'd like you to take a look at the last composer FA, and at the close of a discussion that I felt was sensible. As a doctor once told me: it never hurts to get information (which I then got, but it didn't change my mind). - For the other points: I'm busy but will check them out soonish, probably not today though, with a bio and a RD article waiting. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: Your comments—many thanks for them all—have been addressed to the best of my ability. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, pleased! - Nitpicking:
  • "was a unique honour for the cathedral's choristers" - may be my lack of English but it reads like a contradiction, - I'd expect "was a unique honour for a chorister"
  • In the compositions' table, Evening comes before Morning, yes by alphabet, but then I'd drop the link to Morning, - was linked before.
  • In the table of the instrumental ones, viol is linked at the bottom, - I suggest no link, as linked before, but if a link then for the first.
You decide. None of this is in the way of a support, with thanks for diligent work around a man known too little. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nikkimaria

[edit]

Source review

  • "notable for the difficulty in singing the top notes of the highest part" - source?
Text and citation in the main body of the article accidently removed but now restored. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't duplicate identifiers in |url=
url issue sorted, I think. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Bandcamp reference is incomplete, but is there not a better source for this claim? Ditto CPDL
Refs replaced. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is DIAMM sometimes italicized and sometimes not?
Sorted - the letters were given as a website in the source. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My error, text and source now removed. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check formatting of quote marks within titles
Now sorted, I think. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Brennecke yet to be done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I'm unclear here, as Shakespeare's "Singing Man of Windsor", Brennecke's article, includes a quote, i.e. not a song title. Surely the way I have put it is correct? Amitchell125 (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand your point. The relevant guideline is WP:QWQ - we're trying to avoid the "" formulation. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • be consistent in whether you include publishers for periodicals
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This still seems to be inconsistent: for example Musical Times has a publisher and location but Music and Letters has neither. These aren't required parameters for periodicals so it's okay to either include or exclude, it just needs to be consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite done - compare for example Phillips and Waters, which are to the same publication but have different formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, point above sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:21, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not conduct extensive spotchecks, but I noticed some verifiability issues around the Recordings section. For example, the article states a 2005 recording was released under the DHM label; the provided source was for a 2005 release by Sony BMG, although it notes there was a previous version in 1974 by BASF HM. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check out the sources. This section was added after the peer review by another editor, apologies not not taking a look at it before. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the above comments Nikkimaria​, now hopefully all addressed. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikki, just checking if the SR is GTG... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Last point is pending, otherwise good with the proviso that a full spotcheck was not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:55, 11 October 2022 (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/Osbert_Parsley/archive1&oldid=1115742535"