Wikipedia:Peer review/Scaramouche (Milhaud)/archive1

Scaramouche (Milhaud)

I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to gain a better understanding on any shortcomings in the article and an assessment of whether a GAN would be plausible in the future. The review will be preferably over the entire article. Thanks, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 21:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Gerda

Thank you for the substantial article. At a glance: I see a somewhat restless placement of images and a quote box, and I miss a recordings section, and would love more about reception. With more content, the images could be placed better. Please feel free to reply below each bullet, keeping the bullet and indenting.

First steps:

• The rather giant quote box could be made a horizontal quote.
  • Could you please suggest how to do this? I am quite new to working with quotes. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 17:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

    You could put it in context, and use {{quote}}, as for example in Requiem (Reger)#Evaluation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

    Quote has been converted to block quote and attributed.

• The image of Long, which sandwiches the text next to the infobox, could go to the performance.
  • Do you mean the "Notable performances" section or the external link to a performance? Schminnte (talk • contribs) 17:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
    • I mean the "notable performances" - just not "sandwiching" text between it and the infobox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
      • Image has been moved. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 17:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• The image of Paris at the time is rather decorative, not really related to the piece. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Removed. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 13:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• The performances should be described in detail only once, as nice as the anagrams are. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
  • I have trimmed down the point.
• I never need more than three refs for one fact. The higher article, the more care should be taken that the numbers are in order from lowest to highest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Instances of excessive references have been removed and references have been ordered. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 17:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Please see the above replies. Best, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 17:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you! New idea: what do you think to have first (after the first para about where the music comes from) the description/structure, and then something like performance history, embedding the Nazi censoring as part of it with a subheader, for more chronology? I guess I'd be ready to approve for DYK if that succeeds. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
  • @Gerda Arendt: That sounds good. I'll address that once I get access to my computer. Chronology isn't something I'm very used to (I'm not very used to GA/FA levels of content creation) so I will require some help. Please feel free to action any edits you feel necessary; I trust your experience. I'm currently on mobile version for travel reasons so do you have any smaller suggestions that I could action just now? Schminnte (talk • contribs) 18:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
    • No small questions right now, looking forward. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
      • Gerda, just for clarity could you list what is (in your opinion) the best way to order the article's chronology, preferably using the section names or describing proposed section names. Thanks again, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 18:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
        • Well, look perhaps at Piano Concerto (Reger): History, Structure and music, Arrangements, Performances (later perhaps:, Recordings). Or you could separate performances of the piano duo from those of the arrangements. General idea: first say what it is, then when and how it's performed. No fixed rules, just an approach to get Long's pic down ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

          Where would be a good place to put the "Reception" section? I'm currently back at my computer so can undertake the restructuring. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 19:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

          If there's a separate section, at the end, but reviews could also follow performances and recordings immediately. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

          I have done some basic restructuring. Please suggest possible next steps. Thanks, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 20:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

          @Gerda Arendt, just checking that you have seen the above message. Should I take your approval of the DYK as you considering this PR finished or do you have any more suggestions? If this is finished, please tell me if a GAN would be plausible in the future. Thanks, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 15:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

          For DYK, it is good enough, for GA, let me check again, possibly not today (I was out, and have a few things waiting). It should also be left open a bit longer for others to comment, although - sadly - participation in PRs is low, - don't expect too much. From DYK approved to appearing always takes a few days, - the times that something was in a queue within 10 minutes from nomination - my personal record, in 2009 - are gone. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

hatnote

• Why only one piece? Perhaps make a disambiguation?

  I did not make a disambiguation as there is only one other article on a piece of music called Scaramouche. If this was wrong, please say and I will link to Scaramouche (disambiguation). Schminnte (talk • contribs) 14:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'd do that, because someone not knowing that Milhaud is a composer might land there per search function, when really looking for a film perhaps.

  hatnote has been changed to Other uses, directed to the disambiguation page.

Composition ...

• The header is about first performance, but we read more about publishing
• I'd begin with Long's request.
• I'd say that M. composed (active voice).
• I wonder if the first "no easy" could be dropped (repetitious), or - perhaps better - be expanded a bit, in case we know what was not easy.

  I have attempted to implement all of these changes.

Then could follow Structure, and Arrangements, and then

Performance history

• I see no reason to have it as bulleted list.
  • Unbulleted
• The Nazi censorship could come here in its context.
  • Moved
• If we had individual reviews of performances, they could also go here.
  • Attempting to do so.

Structure (back)

• I'd make it Structure and music, copying there the 2nd para of the lead, with the refs. The lead might be more concise, just a summary, and no refs, and perhaps mention Nazi ban and Goodman.

  I don't quite follow what you want me to do here. What do you want me to move to the Structure and Music section? (I have added about Goodman into the lede but couldn't really find a good way to incorporate the Nazi censorship.)

  No wonder, I meant the second para of Inspiration talking about the movements (which I remembered as being in the lead, sorry). I think it might make more sense together with the structure, but - as all else - it's just suggestions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

  Moved that paragraph to Structure and Music; I agree that it flows better. On an unrelated note, could you possibly suggest (or take a look at yourself) ways to improve the images on the page. It's looking a bit clustered on the right hand side now and I'm not sure what the best way to fix that is. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 21:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

  I looked, and it's good. Pics should normally be right, the only exception being a person looking to the right. If it looks too clustered to you, drop the school image ;) - Always also look how an article looks on a mobile device where the images come in between, not right or left. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Arrangements

• I believe that the image caption would be better if just mentioning he played it, leaving the preference to the text, especially since the Clarinet Concerto (Milhaud) has no article yet.

  Caption has been changed to "Benny Goodman asked Milhaud to arrange Scaramouche for clarinet.

other

• I think to say at some point what Scaramouche means would be a good idea, and if we know, why chosen for the title.

  The explanation given is that it is a reference to the Theatre Scaramouche. Some sources explicitly state that it is not a reference to the Scaramouche character, so I would be hesitant to include that. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 14:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

  sorry, I forgot ...

• Recordings would be nice.

  Finally added!

  For this, would you recommend using plain text or a table? Schminnte (talk • contribs) 14:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

  Depends. Table if many, prose if only a few. (There will be many, but I mean chosen to be mentioned.) ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

That's it for this round. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions, I will look over them tonight. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 11:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Please see some early replies above. More will be dealt with soon. Thanks again, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 14:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: new replies, will work on the recordings and performance sections soon. Best, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 20:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

• We need to sort out whether the article is in the King's English (BrE) or Ameringlish (AmE). At present we have "clarinetist" (AmE) but "organised" (BrE).
  • I am trying to write in BrE, but my browser keeps trying to autocorrect me sadly.
• Clunky false title for "clarinetist Benny Goodman".
  • done
• "Exposition Internationale des Arts et Techniques dans la Vie Moderne" – seems a helluva lot of capital letters for a French title. (At both mentions in the text.)

• Later: I see from this that the Bibliothèque nationale de France capitalises the term thus: Exposition internationale des arts et des techniques dans la vie moderne. And note the extra "des".

• • done
• "Milhaud's friend, the printer Raymond Deiss who requested to do so" – could do with a comma to close the subordinate clause after Deiss.
  • done
• "The New York Times included Scaramouche on their 1974 list" – I think a singular pronoun would be preferable here.
  • done
• "Also at this time I composed a piano work ..." – this is a 137-word quotation. I'd boil it down if possible.
  • I would like a second opinion on how to do this. I'm not sure how to keep the meaning while removing parts of the quote.

Converting some of the direct speech into indirect, this would be my attempt, but you have any number of ways you could do it:

Milhaud wrote that the composition of the work gave him enormous trouble, although he took some passages from incidental music had already written for the theatre. When Deiss offered to publish it, Milhaud advised against it, saying that no one would want to buy it.

And then, I think, to hear the composer's own voice I'd go into direct speech and a block quote:

Milhaud added:

But he was an original character who only published works that he liked. He happened to like Scaramouche and insisted on having his way. In the event he was right, for while sales of printed music were everywhere encountering difficulties, several printings were made.

Boiled down

Milhaud recorded that Diess took a special delight in telling him, "The Americans are asking for 500 copies and 1000 are being asked for elsewhere."

• Not sure it is all that relevant to an article on Scaramouche that the composer's father was Ashkenazi and his mother Sephardi. This level of detail is more appropriate to the composer's article and I'd be inclined here to omit the words in brackets.
  • Removed
• Performances: the second and third of your bullet points are uncited; you have already told us about bullet point 4; and why is a one-off performance at the Proms of note?
  • I have added more information backing up the proms performance: It was the premiere of Scaramouche at the Proms and was received well by critics.

Back in the 1960s I heard the pianist-composer John McCabe and (I think) his wife play Scaramouche at a fund-raising concert for the school that he had attended and I was a pupil at. It helped spark my lifelong love of 20th-century French music, and I am pleased to have been able to add a few thoughts on the piece here. Please ping me if you take the article to FAC. Tim riley talk 16:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Tim riley: thank you for your suggestions. I will look over them after I've reviewed Gerda's comments. Thank you for expressing an interest in the progression of the article, it is a piece that I love very much as well. As you seem to be quite experienced as well (your userpage: wow!) I would like to ask if you would consider GAN a good next route for the article. If so, how much work do you think will need to be done until it is ready for nomination? I will of course ping you if I ever consider FAC. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 17:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the article has potential for GA. A few thoughts:

• You might make a bit more use of printed sources. A balance between websites, journals and books is usually a good thing, when possible. For instance, the book by Paul Collaer, published in 1947, revised in 1982 and published in English in 1988, has unmistakable authority but you cite it just the once (without a page number, I notice).
  • There was not much material in the book that could be added unfortunately. I have added a page number and other paper sources (mainly dissertations and other academic papers)
• If you can source from elsewhere the information cited to AllMusic I would do so. I do not know if AllMusic is a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards.
  • It is reliable if using the review prose. That is what I have done.
• The picture of Marguerite Long is from 1900 or thereabouts. The very obviously turn-of-the-century hat looks comically out of place in an article about a piece she commissioned in 1937. If you can – and I don't say it is possible – get an out of copyright picture from a bit nearer 1937. This one seems to be a few years later than the one with the hat, but you may be able to find a more recent one that is in the public domain. Failing that, you might add "(c. 1900 photograph)" to the caption.
  • Uploaded, cropped and put in place
• Readers may wonder how music written for a 17th-century comedy became a Brazilian samba in the third movement. The review here doesn't imply any drastic modernisation or relocation of Molière's plot.
  • I speak hardly any French, is there any chance you could provide a translation? (any other review sources in French would be greatly appreciated; for reasons above I'm not very good at researching French sources)

The relevant bit of the review says: "An adaptation of The Flying Doctor, by Molière, by M. Charles Vildrac, constitutes the second work of these mornings. This joyous farce is interpreted with the liveliest enthusiasm by the artists mentioned above, joined by Mr. Rollin. Charming music by Mr. Darius Milhaud accompanies The Flying Doctor". No hint that the time or place of Molière's original have been moved, though one notes the word "adaptation". Tim riley talk 17:19, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• Be careful that any audio or video clip you link to is OK from the copyright point of view. We don't link to e.g. YouTube clips unless it is reasonably clear that they have been posted by or with the approval of the copyright holder.
  • Replaced with a video uploaded from France Musique
• Be selective about the information you include: we don't need to be told in two separate places in the text about the June 1943 performance, and I'm not sure why you single out a one-off Prom performance from 2018. Tim riley talk 12:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
  • I think that has been sorted now while addressing above points.

Thanks again. Quite busy this week but will respond soon. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 13:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@Tim riley: I have responded to some of your points and responded to most of User:Gerda Arendt's so will begin reviewing your suggestions now. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 20:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@Tim riley: I have responded to more suggestions, please reply and give further advice. Thanks again, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 21:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello again @Tim riley: I have responded to (I think) all of the points currently provided in this peer review. I have a few sources I want to add first, but after I have done that, do you think we are ready now for a GAN? Schminnte (talk • contribs) 17:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I see no reason at all why you shouldn't put the article up for GAN. Having put my oar in to such an extent already I don't think I should be justified in reviewing it for GAN, but if I were I think it would pass all right. Tim riley talk 17:19, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all your help and encouragement @Tim riley and @Gerda Arendt: I will nominate the article sometime this following week when I am ready to undertake responding to a review. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 17:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I have now submitted a GAN. Fingers crossed! Schminnte (talk • contribs) 22:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Since PRs are supposed to be close upon a GAN, I have closed this. Editors are welcome to open a new PR for FAC consideration. Z1720 (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)