Talk:Steuart Wilson

So when did Wilson retire from singing...?

The article has said for some time that he retired at the age of 50 - I don't know on what authority - but I've just discovered that he was still giving recitals in 1941 while at the Curtis Institute. I will try to find more information, and will amend the article accordingly. Alfietucker (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Steuart Wilson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 11:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll review it, won't be today though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem - thank you so much for taking this on. Alfietucker (talk) 11:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Lead

• Could you give some examples of his roles in the lead?
  • Done. Alfietucker (talk) 10:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Singing

• Link Nice.
• Wilson also sang Mozart at the Old Vic =Avoid starting a paragraph with "also".
• "Wilson made respected English translations of German Lieder and choral texts in collaboration with A. H. Fox Strangways, and published volumes of Schubert, Schumann and Brahms.[4]" Why is this in a separate paragraph?
  • All these points now addressed. Alfietucker (talk) 10:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Overall the content seems to be there for GA but I'm a little concerned with the prose quality in parts which is a bit sketchy and lacks flow. Perhaps @Cassianto: could be of further assistance to this review. I think it could use a copyedit.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

OK - I'm very happy to receive any suggestions for improvement. The source I found to deal with Wilson's translations had a good deal of information about his singing and the libel case; using this, and a contemporary report in The Times, I've corrected some details in the libel section and added some further information. Alfietucker (talk) 12:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty good overall, but I did notice quite a lot of repetition of "also" and some short sentences/paragraphs which affected how smooth its reads in part. I can't find much fault with the actual content though!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

With those points in mind, I've just gone through the article zapping "also"s, and restructuring some sentences, linking others. Very happy to receive any further comments from either you or Cassianto - thank you for those you've give so far. Alfietucker (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Reads much better now. Can you try to improve the lead a bit though to summarise the article, it should mention his BBC appointments and libel case etc for a start. Should be good to pass then, although it would be good if @Cassianto: could also provide some input, not heard from him of late.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I've now made the lead a more comprehensive summary of the article, though I haven't mentioned Wilson's translation work - I'm not sure that is as important or as noteworthy as some other facets of his career, but let me know if you think otherwise. Thank you for your tweaks on the article. Alfietucker (talk) 07:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd be happy to pass now, but I'd like Cassianto to provide some more input before I do so which might take a few days, no rush, it'll pass GA!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, thank you so much again for your help with and attention to this article - very much appreciated. I'm particularly glad your nudge got me to unearth the Tunbridge article, which has been a good source for a deal of information which I think has considerably improved and added character to the article! Alfietucker (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Alfie, where do you intend taking this marvellous little article? I have read through a couple of times now and see nothing which would prevent this from becoming a good article. I do have a few comments and opinions which I can offer; would you be happy to hear of them here, talk, or will you be opening a peer review? Cassianto^talk 18:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Cassianto, thank you so much for your kind comments, and the flattering suggestion I might be considering a peer review. Isn't that usually a stepping stone to a FAC? I must admit I'm really not sure I have enough material to raise the article to that standard (though I think I can glean a little more information from the sources to hand); so I'd be very happy both to have this as "just" a GA, and also - as always - to have your comments which I'm sure would help to much improve the article in any case! Feel free to comment here, or on the article's talk page. Alfietucker (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, Tim, as I'm sure you know, has Keswick up at peer review, and I don't think he intends to take that to FAC. A peer review is not necessarily an indicator; it can be helpful just to confirm in ones mind by asking others for thoughts about how, or indeed where, an article should or could end up. A peer review would be a perfect platform for this, although some reviewers may feel it a waste of time if the article isn't destined for anything past GA. I agree that Wilson needs more meat on the bones for it to stand a chance at FA level, so GA, for now, is certainly the way to go. I reviewed this in my user space earlier and have great pleasure now in posting my comments and quibbles for you to deliberate over. Feel free to disagree and disregard any of them. Cassianto^talk 21:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto

• Awful WP:DISINFOBOX needs to go IMO. This is a benefit to nobody other than those who cannot flick their eyes to the left slightly as everything in the box is on the first line of the lead.
  • A fair point, re all the relevant info being in first line. I'll sleep on this and consider whether to zap.
  • p.s. I've zapped the infobox for now, and have also tweaked the lead here and there, primarily to shunt some pertinent info into its start. I think the point is that someone looking up Wilson on, say, their smartphone may well appreciate having enough pertinent information at the outset (i.e. that there is more to Wilson than being a singer) to persuade them to read on. I might be persuaded that a well-designed infobox could achieve this - but what we had didn't, so away it goes (as I say, for now).
• Why no link to Ralph Vaughan Williams?
  • His name is linked at its first appearance (second paragraph of lead).
  • p.s. I decided to link his first appearance in the main article after all (after the lead), as it does look a bit odd having his name plain when all his Cambridge peers are in glorious blue!
    • I was always taught to link once in the lead section and then once again in the body. Things may have changed though, as they do. Cassianto^talk 07:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Probably a sensible policy, so I'll follow it from now on. Alfietucker (talk) 10:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
• "Authorities differ on whether the wounds, which resulted in the loss of a lung and one of his kidneys" →"Authorities differ on whether the wounds, which resulted in the loss of a lung and a kidney"?
  • Agreed - amended accordingly.
• "In 1921 Wilson met A. H. Fox Strangways, editor of the newly founded journal Music and Letters, and discovered a shared interest in making practical translations of Lieder texts, Wilson having only recently encountered." The ending of this makes little sense owing to a word which may or may not be missing: "In 1921 Wilson met A. H. Fox Strangways, editor of the newly founded journal Music and Letters, and discovered a shared interest in making practical translations of Lieder texts, which Wilson had only recently encountered" perhaps?
  • I'm not sure what happened there - the sentence should have ended with the words "Schubert Lieder", both of them linked. In any case, I've been a bit uneasy about the phrasing of that sentence, which seemed awkward; so your suggestion has indirectly prompted me to go ahead and try to rewrite. Though the result is a longer sentence, with a soft semi-colon break, I *think* it reads rather more easily than before.
• Forced link of Bedales School for those of us wishing to know of its geographical location. Was this in France still?
  • Erm no. I realise I didn't make clear that he returned to England after the war, so I've described the English Singers as "London-based" to help make that clear, along with a few other pointers.
• "...first in Nice with Jean de Reszke (1924–25), with whom he learned the roles of Otello, Parsifal and Tristan." -- you tease! I was the expecting the "second" to be before the full stop; the clause here signifies an ending which when said aloud, sounds rather odd.
  • Fair point - I've replaced the full stop with a semi-colon, and in the next clause replaced "subsequently" with "then" to link more naturally with the previous one.
• "He subsequently studied with Sir George Henschel (1925–28), and studied 17th- and 18th-century music with Wanda Landowska in Paris." Studied/studied repetition.
  • I've now replaced the first with "took lessons".
• First mention of Elgar lacks an introduction, or at least a first name.
  • Added first name, and also added Bach's initials for balance.
• "Mozart remained part of Wilson's repertoire at the Old Vic." -- we seem to be back in London, when did he move from France and why?
  • As I said, he moved back to England after the war. His lessons in Nice, etc., were presumably special trips abroad, rather like Vaughan Williams's to Paris to study with Ravel, or Parry's summer holiday lessons in Germany. I hope the tweaks I've made make it clear that Wilson was essentially based in England during those years.
• "For many years, the conductor Adrian Boult..." -- Another introduction is not needed; I would stick to just his surname.
  • Certainly we don't need "the conductor" (a hang-over, I think, from when we didn't have mention of Wilson's performances with Boult earlier in the article) - now zapped.
• "When, in the late 1920s, Wilson began to mistreat his wife, Boult took her side..." -- "when" is redundant here.
  • I think we need the opening "When" as this indicates when Boult took the side of Mrs Wilson (and implicitly strained his relationship with Steuart from that point). But I'm open to suggestions for possible rephrasing.
• We have a lot of years written out numerically, some of which could be receded. For instance, "She divorced Wilson on grounds of cruelty in 1931, and married Boult in 1933" could easily be "She divorced Wilson on grounds of cruelty in 1931, and married Boult two years later."
  • Followed your suggestion here - thank you.
• "The stigma attached to divorce in Britain in the 1930s affected Wilson's career but not Boult's" -- Why should it affect Boult's career, he simply remarried?
  • Not sure - I'll have another look at the sources tomorrow when I'm a bit more awake (had an early start today!).
  • p.s. Having now looked, I think you're quite right. It's not as if Ann divorced Steuart Wilson because of Boult, and Boult appears to have played a totally honorable role. I've therefore shunted the info about the coronation into a footnote, and added some more information to another.
• "In 1943 he was appointed music director..." Another "In 19.."
  • Fixed.
• "After the war, in 1945 he was appointed..." We don't, I feel, need both; either "after the war" or "1945".
  • Fixed - opted for "after the war".
• "In 1948, the year in which he was knighted..." -- Any idea what he was knighted for?
  • Found new source (BBC Year Book 1949) with info.
• "When Boult had been appointed director of music at the BBC in 1930, the Corporation's director-general Sir John Reith had informally promised him that would be exempt from the BBC's rule that staff must retire at age 60." -- Wilson right and not Boult? Also, spot the missing "he" between "that" and "would".
  • Added "he"; I've also attempted to clarify the sentence re Boult and the informal promise (made on several occasions by Reith, according to Kennedy).
• Both the notes finish without any sort of citation. A couple will need to be added I think.
  • I've added one footnote since, which is referenced, and have given a further citation to the first footnote (the titles referred to within the first sentence are both listed in Sources). I don't have a copy of Margaret Stewart's book, so I can't offer a page range for this now (Tim, can you help?). I've ordered a copy of the book for my own reference, so in time I can add this (hopefully in about a week).
• Ref 12: delete "Thursday".
  • Done.
• Ref 21: delete the closing full stop.
• Ref 29: delete the closing full stop.
• Ref 37: delete the closing full stop.
• Ref 42: delete the closing full stop.
  • All closing full stops deleted.

That's my lot, nice job! Cassianto^talk 21:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for such a thorough read-through and feedback on the article. I've gone through some of the points, and will return to the rest tomorrow when my mind is a bit more fresh. Alfietucker (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Have now finished going through your very helpful comments and feedback - thank you so much. I think the only loose end is citing pagination for Margaret Stewart's book - possibly Tim has access to a copy? I've ordered a copy anyway, so may be able to provide a reference in about a week. Let me know, though, if there's any other loose ends I may have missed. Alfietucker (talk) 09:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   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:

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

This has come on leaps and bounds. A most productive review. Excellent comments by Cassianto and effort Alfie in improving this! IMO with a peer review I think this could be brought up to FA status and I urge you to do so. Thanks!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Dr. Blofeld, and also to you Cassianto - both of you have helped make this a very positive process and the article is so much the better for it. As I've said to Cassianto, I'm not sure I've quite enough material to raise this to FA status, but perhaps Margaret Stewart's book will make a significant difference when it arrives. I'll certainly let you know if it does! Again, many thanks. Alfietucker (talk) 14:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

My pleasure gents! Featured articles don't have to be long, just comprehensive. I would say that this is 100% comprehensive for a GA, but needs another 20% more to stand up and be counted at FA level. This really is not far off from FAC at all IMO. Cassianto^talk 19:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Promotion to GA

Very pleased to see this article promoted. I worked on it a few years back and have recently been watching with pleasure its improvement from average-&-reasonable to a copper-bottomed GA. Loud cheers all round! (I haven't got his widow's biog of him, b.t.w.) Tim riley talk 18:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Tim, I've e-mailed you a message, but just to acknowledge and thank you here not only for having laid the original foundations of this article (as if you only did a bit of work on it!), but for having been so kind as to nudge it into being reviewed and, as a result, even further improved. Alfietucker (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)