Talk:Jean Sibelius/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 15:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Starting first read-through of current version. More soonest. Tim riley talk 15:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm slowly, and with much enjoyment, working my way through the text. Comments to follow a.s.a.p. – tomorrow, I hope. Meanwhile you may like to consider the matter of WP:OVERLINK: we don't normally put in blue links to countries and capital cities. I suggest you lose the links to Finland, Helsinki London and Vienna. Still on links, despite the general guidance of the MoS, there seems to have grown up an informal acceptance by regular FAC reviewers (who will be seeing the article in due course, I trust) that in a Life and Works article it is OK to link once per subject from the Life section and once from the Works section. I don't quarrel with that, but I think you ought to limit yourself to just one link from Life and one from Works. At present we have duplicate links within the Life section to Kalevala (linked twice in one paragraph), Adolf Paul, the Fourth Symphony, Richard Strauss, Luonnatar, The Oceanides, Richard Strauss, University of Helsinki, Turku, The Seventh Symphony, The Tempest, and Richard Strauss again; in the Works sections we have duplicate links for sonata form, Richard Strauss, the Second, Fourth, Sixth and Seventh Symphonies and Tapiola. There may be others I haven't spotted. – Tim riley talk 18:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim, for taking this on and coming up so quickly with useful suggestions. I've been tied up this evening but will try to make an early start tomorrow.--Ipigott (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I've gone through the mentioned wls and removed some. Please check, whether that is enough. In some cases I have left one link per lead or level two section. --Mirokado (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that. It looks good to me. No more needed on this point, I think. Tim riley talk 21:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

First batch of comments on the text

The prose is fine for GA, certainly meeting criterion 1, and in truth some of my comments are made more with a future FA candidacy in mind than for the review I'm conducting here. Still, I hope they are helpful for present purposes. I shall probably need two or three goes at this substantial and important text. First lot, down to the end of Move to Ainola:

• Lead
  • [I prefer to leave reviewing this till last, after I have absorbed the main text. More in due course.]
• Early years
  • "Not surprisingly, he later turned to the violin" – not keen on the editorialising "not surprisingly"

Done--Ipigott (talk) 16:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• • Note 14 – citations come after, not before, closing brackets

Done--Ipigott (talk) 16:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• • "movements of the Mendelssohn's Violin Concerto" – I think you should lose either the definite article or the apostrophe ess.

Done--Ipigott (talk) 16:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• Studies and early career
  • "One of his teachers was the founder Martin Wegelius" – unless Wegelius was one of several founders he needs a comma before his name.

Done.

• • "an art which until then he had learnt himself" – this needs a bit of massaging, I think: the "he" is of course Sibelius, but that isn't unambiguous. I'd be inclined to redraw on the lines of "It was he who gave the self-taught Sibelius his first formal lessons in composition".

Done.

• • "conductor to be Armas Järnefelt" – I think perhaps a hyphen or two would help the reader here

Done.

• • "with the Hungarian Karl Goldmark and the Austrian Robert Fuchs" – is the nationality of these two musicians relevant? Fine, if so, but it isn't obvious.

I thought it was interesting that he studied under a Hungarian. I simply included "Austrian" for balance as it was in Vienna. I have reversed the order although this might not be chronologically correct.--Ipigott (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• • "Anton Bruckner whom, for a time, he regarded as 'the greatest living composer', although he continued to show interest in Beethoven and Wagner". – this reads rather as though Beethoven and Wagner were still alive at the time.

Reworded

• • "restored to good health when a "stone" was removed" – presumably a gallstone rather than 14lbs? Could be clarified if possible.

Done

• • "Vienna and Berlin (1889–1891), in 1900–1901" – the MoS recommends the date range style "Vienna and Berlin (1889–91), in 1900–01"

Done--Ipigott (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• Marriage and family
  • The reference to Ainola's construction in 1903 and the third para of this section take the narrative noticeably out of chronological order, and I'd be inclined to move them both forward to their relevant dates within the text.

I've tried to resequence this. Might require further tweaking.--Ipigott (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Think it's OK now. Done.

• Slow rise to fame
  • "Student Association Gala" – capitals really wanted?

Done

• • "Sibelius worked on a grand opera" – careful with that term! I have been duffed up by opera experts for using the expression loosely, and if the planned work was Wagnerian it certainly wasn't a grand opera in the technical sense of the term.

Done

• • "at Kajanus' conducting school" – you should, I think, be consistent in possessives for people whose names end in s. You favour Sibelius's rather than Sibelius' (applause from me for that) but we have no ess-apostrophe-ess here.

My mistake. Done

• • "The critics were highly favourable, even those in Berlin" – have I missed something earlier suggesting that Berlin critics might not be well disposed to Sibelius, or were pickier than those elsewhere?

They had not been kind to him on earlier occasions but these are not included. I've reworded. Done

• • "It was finally completed" – does the adverb add anything useful?

I wanted to emphasize how long it took but it really doesn't add anything. Done

• Move to Ainola
  • "pleading him to return" – can plead be used transitively? "imploring" or "urging" might be preferable here, perhaps.

Done

It is a pleasure and a privilege to review this article. More soonest. Tim riley talk 14:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Second lot, to the end of the Life part.

• Ups and downs
  • "Its reception in Moscow was however rather more positive – I don't think the however adds anything here, but if you keep it you should put a comma on either side of it.

Have deleted "however"

• More pleasant times
  • "he conducted … while a meeting with Claude Debussy produced further support" – perhaps one of those cases in which "while" to mean "and" is better avoided, giving as it does here an inappropriate suggestion of simultaneity.

Reworded

• • "at the Music Festival in Gloucester" – if you want to anonymise the Three Choirs Festival – I'm not sure why – I don't think you should capitalise "Music Festival".

Now in lower case. Not sure "Three Choirs" was the official name then.

• • "he was particularly drawn to Arnold Schönberg" – personally or musically? Do we know what Schoenberg thought of Sibelius?

Will have to look into this. It was of course musically.

Please don't feel bullied by me on this! As I say, my remarks on this page are mostly ultra vires so far as the GA criteria are concerned, and you can agree or not as you wish. Just looking ahead to PR and FAC, in truth. Tim riley talk 18:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• • "First composed in D flat major, Sibelius undertook substantive revisions" – the grammar is a bit rocky here: Sibelius wasn't first composed in D flat.

Done

• • "Henry Krehbiel considered The Oceanides to have been … while The New York Times considered Sibelius's music to have been" – the repetition of "considered to have been" is a bit infelicitous, perhaps, and the first of them should surely be "considered to be".

Done

• Revived fortunes
  • "receiving 'unique' ovations – the import of the quotation marks is not apparent: who called them unique, and in what sense were they unique?

Done

• • Third paragraph: was he conducting these British concerts or merely present at them?

Done

• • "highly praised by Evert Katila who qualified it as 'pure idyll'" – the quotation from Katila could do with a citation.

Will look into this.

• • "He then proceeded to Gothenburg where he enjoyed an ecstatic reception despite over-indulging in food and drink" – this seems something of a non sequitur. Would concert audiences have cared about his eating and drinking habits?

Done

• Final years and death
  • There are two "buts" in the first sentence; you might perhaps make the second one a semicolon.

Done

• • "he considered Richard Strauss, Béla Bartók and Dmitri Shostakovich the most talented composers of the younger generations" – this reads a touch oddly, as Richard Strauss was older than Sibelius.

Reworded

• • "In the 1950s he actively promoted" – can one promote inactively?

Done

• • "Erik Tawaststjerna also relates an endearing anecdote" – "endearing" is a shade editorial, possibly?

Done

• • "At the time of his death, his Fifth Symphony, conducted by Sir Malcolm Sargent, was being broadcast from Helsinki" – I have a reproduction before me of the celebrated Daily Mail headline:

SIBELIUS DIES

As he hears Sargent conducting

his Fifth Symphony

From Daily Mail Correspondent, Helsinki, Friday

which I mention not so much for what Fritz Spiegl called "a dim innuendo" against Sir Malcolm as to draw your attention to the fact – if fact it be – that the composer heard the broadcast (some of it, at any rate); at present the article doesn't say so.

I am aware of this news item but other sources simply say that the concert was being broadcast at the time of his death. I thought it was preferable not to be over assertive.

• "Aino lived there for the next twelve years" – your policy for showing numbers as words or digits isn't immediately obvious. Many writers go up to ten in words and from 11 onwards in figures. Here I notice "twelve" but "16 swans" earlier. I just mention the point, for your consideration.

Done

More soonest. Tim riley talk 10:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Last lot

• Music
  • I think you have got exactly the right line and length for this section. A brisk overview, and a neat encapsulation of the major works. In my view this is ideal for the visitor to the page, who can, if he or she chooses, follow any links for more detailed info on any work, or can get a good summary of the whole oeuvre here.
    • Thanks for the assessment but unfortunately some of the articles on the individual pieces, especially the symphonies, leave a lot to be desired.
      • Quite so, but they are not our present concern. One thing at a time! Tim riley talk 16:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Introductory section
  • Fourth para – I don't demur at any of this para, but I'd like to check that ref 77 covers every statement in it.
  • Sheer curiosity: do we know in what language Sibelius and Mahler talked to each other?

I imagine they spoke German. Sibelius was quite fluent in German although not always grammatically correct. Most Swedish-speakers of his day also spoke German.

• Symphonies
  • Last para – rather late in the day to link the generic term "symphony", perhaps?

Done

• Tone poems
  • I think a citation at the end of the first sentence would be no bad thing, though I admit it's hardly a controversial statement. I boggle a bit at "significant" (here and twice above and once below): what does the music signify? I think a more demure "important" might be safer.

Done

• • "praised upon its premiere as "the finest evocation of the sea ... ever ... produced in music"" – you should, perhaps, attribute this statement inline.

Done

• • "the Scottish composer and biographer Cecil Gray" – I really do question whether it is relevant that Gray was Scottish.

Done

• Other important works
  • "is better described as a suite of five symphonic movements resembling tone poems" – says who?

Done

• Other reactions
  • The opening sentence has clearly been transplanted, out of context, from an earlier draft. I think you could simply blitz it: the para makes perfect sense without it.

Done

• • We could do with citations for the first and second paras, and (apart from the Cardus quote) the third, too.
  • If Burnett James gave the date of the Cardus quote as 1958 he was out by two decades: see "The Hallé Concerts", The Manchester Guardian, 21 October 1938, p. 13: Cardus added, "For my part, I confess some amusement at the idea of Sibelius as an authority on cold water for the purposes of liquid refreshment;"

Have deleted this section as it was from an older version of the article and was not referenced.

• Reception
  • "Furthermore, Tapiola is prominently echoed in both Bax's Sixth Symphony and Moeran's Symphony in G Minor" – citation, please.

Done

• • "Eugene Ormandy and to a lesser extent, his predecessor Leopold Stokowski" – his predecessor at Philadelphia, presumably? We should say so.

Done

• • "Later in life he was championed by critic Olin Downes" – two points here: first the "he" logically means Ormandy here, and secondly there is a false title for Olin Downes, who wrote for the American paper that was and is a bulwark of resistance to that regrettable construction.

Done

• • "Perhaps one reason Sibelius has attracted… " – I rather doubt that ref 70 covers the opinion voiced in the first part of this para. A citation would be welcome there.

Done

• • "American avant-garde composer Morton Feldman" – another easily remediable false title.

Done

• • Last two paras are free of citations.

One deleted. Other sourced.

• Contemporary assessments
  • May I suggest that this one-sentence section should be subsumed in the preceding section?
• References
  • Ref 60: Upper and lower case, please (MoS) however it appeared in the original.

Done

That's all from me. I think I must leave cutting the tape till the few points, above, about occasional lack of citations are addressed, but otherwise I see this not only as an imminent GA but a potential FA. – Tim riley talk 21:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Ahem! I forgot to review the lead – I'm so sorry! I'd add just two points to my earlier comments: "the Silence of Järvenpää" mysteriously becomes "the Silence of Ainola" in the main text: best to be consistent. And are you sure the asteroid belongs in the lead? You don't mention it in the main text, where, in my view, it belongs. WP:LEAD stipulates that the lead shouldn't contain anything that isn't in the main text. Tim riley talk 09:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

These have both been fixed too.--Ipigott (talk) 08:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• I would like to thank you, Tim, for coming up with all these constructive comments. It's been a useful review. While the article could still be improved for FA along the lines of Carl Nielsen, I think it gives a good overview of Sibelius and his works. If you have any specific comments for further work, please let me know.--Ipigott (talk) 08:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I think there's a closing page number omitted in ref 114. Be that as it may, the article is clearly of GA standard. I can't think of any particular suggestions for further improvement before going to FAC, but other editors may have plenty of helpful input if your next stop is Peer Review, which I strongly recommend. Meanwhile, I have considerable pleasure in promoting the article to GA. – Tim riley talk 09:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The incomplete page ranges come from Google books ref generator (for example). The url points to the mentioned page, the user needs to edit the page parameter by hand to refer correctly to the single page or to a range. I have updated the references to refer just to that page, we can extend the range if necessary. Many thanks from me to, Tim, for this careful review. --Mirokado (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

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

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: