Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Edward Elgar/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 Karanacs 15:34, 9 November 2010 [1].

Edward Elgar[edit]

Edward Elgar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Tim riley (talk) 09:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I have added to it and, I believe, refined it, since its promotion to GA. The article, I believe, now meets all the FAC criteria, and gives a rounded picture of the composer's life and music. I have been much helped by Wiki-colleagues Brianboulton and Barnabypage at peer review, Ssilvers with copyreading beyond the call of duty, and Nikkimaria with getting the images documented. P0mbal contributed the section listing Elgar's works. – Tim riley (talk) 09:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment: Ref 107 is broken. I have tried, unsuccessfully, to fix it and will try again, as there doesn't seem to be much wrong here. Full review and further comments will follow. Brianboulton (talk) 10:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—no dab links; I was able to fix the dead external link. Ucucha 11:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: An extremely thorough and well researched article on this major English composer. I peer-reviewed it before its GAN, thought it was near FA quality then. I have just two minor (and partially related) caveats:-

  • Length: The article runs to a whopping 109 kb. The wordcount, around 9,500, is large but not excessive; the main surplus baggage is the "Selected works" listing. Is this list necessary? There is a link to a subarticle that contains an exhaustive listing of all Elgar's works, so why do we need a separate, partial listing here? Losing this section immediately reduces the kb count to below 100.
    • I agree, but hesitate to blitz it as it was not my contribution. If other reviewers take the same view I will do so. Tim riley (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images: You certainly haven't stinted on the illustrations - there are nearly 30 of them, besides musical examples. However, some of the images are of pretty marginal relevance: Newman, the modern ROH, Binyon and Kipling (maybe one but why both?), the "composers who admired Elgar", etc. They all add to the kb count. I would advise a cull of some of these less central images, which would give the more important illustrations a greater impact as well as reducing the kb.
    • Pictures culled here and there. I've left the quartet Sibelius/Strauss/RVW/Stravinsky in place really to break up a slab of text, but will happily zap it if other reviewers think it should go. Thank you very much for your support. Tim riley (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These reservations do not amount to reasons for withholding support, but perhaps you would consider them, particularly in the light of any related comments from other reviewers. Brianboulton (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: Note that I have proofread and commented on this article twice over the past several months. The article is a comprehensive presentation of this leading English composer, including an interesting biography, with musical analysis of his most important pieces. As usual, User:Tim riley's prose is clear, and the reader gets a balanced view of the subject, with a good feeling for what is most important about him and his work. I agree with Brianboulton that the list of selected works is not needed: The major works are discussed clearly in the narrative, and there is a complete, searchable list of Elgar's works in a separate article, so this is redundant and simply adds to the length of the article. I would rather keep the images, however, except maybe the modern image of the ROH. I heartily support this nomination. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A few pictures pruned, but point taken! And thank you very much for your support. Tim riley (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. No comments to make; I've been watching this one from a distance for quite a while. – iridescent 19:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for this! An unexpected bonus. Tim riley (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. An excellent article. A small remaining concern is that there's a lot of blue, so perhaps you could consider removing any low-value links, such as town names, but that's a minor preference issue. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A pleasure to read, Tim. I noticed a few quotations where it's not clear who is being quoted, or why it's a quote. For example, "Elgar has been described as 'the first composer to take the gramophone seriously.'" And "Elgar's mother had 'a taste and inclination for the arts' ...". SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been working on this article on and off for so long that I too am not sure why I have put quotation marks round either of the quotes you mention. I've removed them – many thanks! Are there any others you noticed? Tim riley (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would remove anything where people are quoted without saying who they are; either remove the quotation marks (be careful not to end up inadvertently plagiarizing if you do that), or add in-text attribution. I noticed an odd sentence: "She also inspired him with a discerning taste for literature and a passionate love of the countryside." She had a discerning taste that inspired him? Or he ended up with a discerning taste thanks to her inspiration? I would check the source and rewrite. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is most helpful, and I'm grateful. I'll comb through the text and look out for all such quotes. Tim riley (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're welcome. A few others:
  • Elgar arranged "dozens of pieces by Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn, and other masters" for the quintet, honing his arranging and compositional skills.
  • Stockley had invited him to conduct the piece, but "he declined, and, further, insisted upon playing in his place in the orchestra. The consequence was that he had to appear, fiddle in hand, to acknowledge the genuine and hearty applause of the audience."
  • Alice's faith in him, and her courage in marrying "beneath her class", were strongly supportive to his career. (And "supportive to" needs a tweak; "supportive of" perhaps, but better to reword.)
All done as suggested. I've added inline attributions to the majority, and reworded the others. A distinct improvement – thank you! – Tim riley (talk) 07:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support - excellent article apart from some inconsistencies in reference format. For example, "(Moore (1986), p. 440)", "Kennedy (ODNB) and Grove Online" vs "Kennedy, ODNB", etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for this - and for your earlier help, too. I'll comb through the refs for inconsistencies. – Tim riley (talk)
      • Now done. I think I have eliminated any remaining inconsistencies. – Tim riley (talk) 08:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image/File review All images/sound files look fine now. Hekerui (talk) 14:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have spotted the work you have done on the labelling, and am most grateful. Thank you. – Tim riley (talk) 15:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support No I don't think the article is too long YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re above, I have not suggested that the article itself is too long. I have suggested that the list of selected works adds unnecessary kb when there is a comprehensive list of Elgar's works here. None of the present composer biographies which are featured has a "selected works" section, all have links to a complete works list. Is there a stronger reason for the retention of this selected list than that presently offered, that it was another editor's contribution? If not, I am convinced that it should go. Brianboulton (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm delighted to support this nomination. Just a few comments:
I agree that the "selected works" should go, as per Brianboulton above.
See note below about this. I propose to remove it tomorrow, having given notice on the article talk page and drawing the original contributor's attention to the consensus and proposed action. Tim riley (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the lede, 'enduring popularity' sounds rather weedy: how about 'have entered the British and international classical concert canon' or something like that? You might also give the date of his knighthood which as a mark of his status is probably rather more significant in his biography than his appointment to the sinecure of Master of the King's Musick.
Both done. Tim riley (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you sometimes give names and details of sources in the text e.g. 'The result is described by Diana McVeagh in the Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, as "his first major work.." ' This rather distracting for Wikipedia, when the details are in the reference. Why not, e.g. ' The result has been described as "his first major work...." '
I agree on the whole, but at PR and FAC on this and other articles the majority opinion is that if you quote someone you should say inline whom you're quoting, so I go with the majority. Tim riley (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Smerus, and I wonder if there is a middle ground. For instance, if the person saying it is notable, then it would seem to make more sense to say their name. Otherwise, the info in the link should be sufficient. Sometimes commenters at PR can be impractical.... As Smerus say, though, this is a minor issue and does not affect my hearty support of this nom. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But these are minor carps about the article as a whole which is a substantial acheievement and certainly deserving FA status. --Smerus (talk) 04:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your support.

Support: It's a great article. When I peer reviewed it before it's GA I already said I thought it was near FA. I agree that it might be an idea to very much shorten the list of selected works. I know there are some suggestions that there may be too many images but I would have thought that a photo of Garrard's Enigma statue would be nice.--Kudpung (talk) 10:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this. I don't think I know the Garrard statue, and will look into it without delay. If I can lay hands on a properly available copy I'll do the necessary.

Note from nominator – "Selected works" section: in view of the consensus above, I have given notice on the article talk page that I am proposing to delete it imminently. Tim riley (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Selected Works As initiator and main contributor to the List of All Compositions, my visualisation of the List of Selected Works was that it should be selective by the criteria of accepted *popularity* and *quality*, as would be found in a good English condensed encyclopedia (e.g. Grove Concise Dictionary of Music 1994), but as feared the list here has 'growed'. The problem is how far should the selection go: the Symphonies, the Variations, the Concerti, Intro and Allegro, Gerontius, Land of Hope and Glory, Falstaff ... where to stop, and how and if to stop people adding their favourites. I think it is possible and desirable to include a top 30 or so (as in above Grove) and then stop. P0mbal (talk) 12:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good! I hope this will be a generally accepted as a sensible and practical recourse. I suggest we leave the section as it is, pending completion of the article's consideration for promotion to FA, after which (successful or no) P0mbal could trim the section on the lines of the Concise Grove, as prescribed above. Tim riley (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review: For some reason this has been overlooked. I will do it now and post shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are generally of high quality, and the footnotes section is particularly impressive. There are a few problems with the organisation of the citations and references, however.

  • General point: There are inconsistencies in the ways in which citations to newspaper and magazine articles are formatted. Sometimes we have author, title, journal and date, sometimes author, journal and date, sometimes just journal and date. Authors' names are not always known, I know, but when available they should be given. For example, in ref 42 the author is Geraint Lewis. Citations should always be to a specific article title, rather than just to The Times, The Musical Quarterly etc.
    • Thanks for this. All done as recommended, I think. Grateful for thoughts on refs 138, 139 and 143: all three refer to the same article (the first two mentioning it along with other sources), but I have not repeated the full list of authors at second and third mentions – it seemed unhelpful. I am in some doubt about attributing ref 39 to the four musicians mentioned: the article is arguably an aggregation by an anonymous journalist of quotes from eminent musicians – perhaps it ought not to be attributed to anyone. The Observer writer mentioned at ref 12 signed his initials A.F.S., and the Manchester Guardian writer mentioned at ref 81 is initialled "F.B.". I can't recall any critics' names that fit either of these sets of initials. The "W.R.A" responsible for the notice mentioned at ref 85 may be W. R. Anderson, familiar from The Gramophone of yore, but I don't think one can assume. – Tim riley (talk) 10:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you have done what you can with the information available, and I think each of these sources is fully identifiable now. Brianboulton (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few other specific issues, mainly minor:
    • Refs 1 and 16: the ODNB articles by Kennedy (2004) and Maine (1949) are formatted ever so slightly differently (date positioning): Should be made consistent.
    • Ref 15: The source appears to be a manuscript relating to the Powick Asylum, held by the Elgar Birthplace Museum. For verification purposes, this seems a rather inaccessible source for confirming the composition of the asylum band. The same information, with slightly more detail, is available in Young's biography, p. 47: "...piccolo, flute, clarinet, 2 cornets, euphonium, three or four 1st and a similar number of 2nd violins, occasional viola, cello, double bass and pianoforte". Suggest you promote Young from Further reading and use this source instead.
      • Done. Thank you very much for digging it out. – Tim riley (talk) 10:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 44: give date of press release (7.9.09) and access date.
    • Ref 136: "see The Musical Times 1931 issues, passim" seems very imprecise. What am I being directed to, for verification purposes?
      • I have added half a dozen MT references, from 1932 as well as 1931 – the row rumbled on that long. – Tim riley (talk) 10:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two books [Cox and Moore (1979)] lack publisher location
    • I wonder why there are so many "Further reading" titles? Was there any basis for selection, other than that they are books about Elgar?
      • Most of the publications listed explore particular aspects of Elgar, outside the scope of this "life and works" type of encyclopaedia article. Although I have not drawn on them for the present article, they are worth reading by anyone whose interest is engaged by their particular topics. The Adams 2007 book is a collection of essays, again on specialist aspects of Elgar, and the same applies to the Cambridge volume. Of the general "life and works" books, Rosa Burley and W H Reed are interesting as memoirs by people who knew EE personally, but are useful side-lights rather than detached biographical studies. (Reed's technical comments in his other book are very much ad rem, and I have quoted them in the article.) The Moore 1972 book is a splendid photographic collection, and the Mundy a short, very readable alternative to the bigger and better-known Moore (1984) and Kennedy (1987). – Tim riley (talk) 10:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this review is closed, the article having been promoted 9 November. Brianboulton (talk) 09:33, 10 November 2010 (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/Edward_Elgar/archive1&oldid=1089817616"