Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Arnold Bax/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 06:37, 31 October 2015 [1].

Arnold Bax

edit
Nominator(s): Tim riley talk 12:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Following in the footsteps of the featured articles on the English British composers Britten, Delius, Elgar, Holst, Stanford, Tippett, Walton and Warlock, this article on their colleague and contemporary, Bax, is now a candidate for the FA pantheon. It has had the benefit of a thorough peer review, and I hope will be judged to meet the FA criteria. I found Bax an interesting figure to write about, and, with any luck, readers may find him interesting to read about. – Tim riley talk 12:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support—had my say at PR. A solid FA in my view and a great read. Well done Tim on yet another excellent piece of work on a subject I had no idea about. (Though I must protest—I think Stanford was Irish.) —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aaargh! Quite true. And me with a name like Riley! Now remedied. Thank you for your support, sir! Tim riley talk 12:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Another happy traveller from the PR. A interesting and informative read that covers the criteria for FA as far as I can see. - SchroCat (talk) 13:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support As above, a quality, concise article, well-deserving of FA status. I wish I could keep the Sinatra article to this length!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to SchroCat and Dr B for valuable input at PR and for support here. I am most grateful. Tim riley talk 14:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Midnightblueowl:

  • In the lede we state that Streatham was a London suburb; in the "Early Years" section we say its in Surrey. This needs to be sorted. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather than saying "Parry, Stanford, Vaughan Williams and Holst;[7] Sullivan and Elgar stood aloof," should we not provide their full names and make it clear that these were composers of classical music? Always assume that the reader knows next to nothing about the subject and won't be familiar with the identity of such individuals. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • We usually just give surnames for notable composers, rather as we don't normally find it necessary to give Shakespeare his William or (contrariwise) Rembrandt his van Rijn or Michelangelo his Buonarroti. It reduces the clutter, and it is clear from the context here that these are composers, as clicking on the links will confirm for anyone moved to do so. Tim riley talk 16:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We mention that in 1910 he entered Russia. Can we check to see if he did actually enter Russia itself, or whether the term Russian Empire would be more appropriate here; it seems that he was pursuing a Ukrainian woman and wrote music about Ukraine, so it could perhaps be that he spent all his time within Ukraine rather than Russia. Clarification on this point would be most welcome. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Russia certainly - he went to St Petersburg, where he fell in love with ballet - but he also went to Ukraine, and Russian Empire would be perfectly acceptable. I've linked to it. Tim riley talk 16:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • For what it's worth, my paternal forebears came to England from a small town in what is now Ukraine just a few years before this—but so far as I know, based on family papers and the like, they always referred to having come from Russia. My point is that there wasn't such a great distinction in those days between what would today be called Russia and what would today be called Ukraine. (At least according to the Russians, the word "Ukraina" comes from an old Slavic word, okraina, meaning "outskirts" or "borderland"—the implication being fairly obvious. That's the main reason the favoured wording in English used to be "the Ukraine", but isn't anymore now it's become independent from Russia.) Sorry, tangent over. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's true that the division between Ukraine and Russia was certainly a lot blurrier in the past then it is today. It was made all the more so by the fact that throughout the era of the Russian Empire, there were large numbers of ethnically/linguistically Russian folk living within the area of modern Ukraine (and of course, that continues to some extent today). However, Cliftonian, might it be the case that your ancestors were not actually Ukrainians but Russians who had lived in Ukraine during the era of the Empire? That might explain why they were more willing to describe "Russia" as their homeland? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm sorry, Midnightblueowl, I didn't mean to raise an argument—I just thought people might find the brief tangent interesting. Regarding my forebears, one strand of them do seem to have had some reasonably well-off relatives in the Russian metropole including an architect and, at least according to family legend, a tailor to the Tsar. However my direct patrilineal predecessors are shrouded in mystery. The main fact about them that endures in the family memory is that my great-grandfather was one of 22 children—every single one a boy. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I worry that terms like "well-to-do" are too colloquially British and thus might not be particularly accessible to an international readership; would something like "wealthy" be preferable? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've done a swift check, courtesy of the Oxford Dictionaries, and the phrase is in use in American, Australian, Canadian, Indian and Irish English, so I think we're all right. The phrase is, I think, preferable to "wealthy", which is a rather genteel synonym for the plain "rich". "Affluent" would work here, but I think "well-to-do" is better. Tim riley talk 16:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is nicely written, and while I am not personally keen on the form of referencing used, it seems apparent that a nice variety of appropriate citations have been included. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your contributions. All actioned or explained as above. Tim riley talk 16:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tim. I'm happy to express my Support for this article now. Well done! Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you, too, for your input at PR and above and your support here. Tim riley talk 07:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from West Virginian

edit

Support Tim riley, I've just finished engaging in a review of your article and I assess it to exceed Wikipedia:Featured article criteria as it is indeed well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, and neutral and stable; and I find that its lede, structure, and citations all conform to Wikipedia's style guidelines. The media used in the article is properly licensed, except for perhaps the main image and the image of Harriet Cohen, which are both in the Public Domain in the US, but may need additional documentation of their license status in the UK and elsewhere. I'll let Nikkimaria weigh in on that one. Otherwise, I concur with the comments and assessments of SchroCat, Dr. Blofeld, and Cliftonian. I can find no other aspects of this article that would preclude it from achieving Featured Article status. Congratulations on a another job well done, Mr. Riley! -- West Virginian (talk) 15:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly. Your support is most welcome. Tim riley talk 16:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite welcome Tim riley; it was a privilege. -- West Virginian (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

I don't know if it suffices for present purposes, but a reviewer at PR kindly added an image review there. The images remain as they were then. Tim riley talk 11:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Wehwalt, for your v. helpful input at PR and for your support here. Tim riley talk 16:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Late on parade, but at least I'm giving you a sources review (see below). And I have just a couple of points outstanding from my peer review

  • There still seems to be overemphasis on the year 1919, in relation to Mr Evans. Thus we have: "In a study of Bax in 1919 his friend and confidante, the critic Edwin Evans...", followed later by "Writing in 1919, Evans suggested..." and later still, "In his 1919 overview of Bax's earlier chamber works, Evans identifies..." (In the last of these, Evans is suddenly in the present tense, which you may want to fix). Is it really necessary to state the year each time Evans's writings are mentioned? No other years are associated with Evans.
  • Foreman, having been just a surname in the many mentions since his introduction, suddenly becomes "Lewis Foreman" again in the last paragraph of the "Neglect and Revival" section.

These minor niggles don't at all detract from the high quality of this biography which provides an excellent rounded picture of this neglected figure. Until now, I've only known two things about Bax: Tintagel, and his position as joint holder (with Cesar Cui) of the shortest surname of any recognised "classical" composer – now you'll probably tell me there's an Albanian miniaturist called Enver Ug. Ah, well.... Brianboulton (talk) 23:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • Ref 24: needs a "subscription" template
  • Ref 88: "Who was Who" should have the same subscription tag as ODNB
    • Done, though with some misgivings: a link in what appears on the page when one uses that template takes the reader to this page: confusing for anyone following up a Who Was Who rather than an ODNB reference, I think. – Tim riley talk 07:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Sources list, is it "Scholar Press" or "Scolar Press"? See Bax 1992 and Foreman 1983.
    • The latter, now I check. Now amended.

Otherwise, all sources look of appropriate reliability, and formatting is consistent. Brianboulton (talk) 23:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am most grateful for your suggestions at PR and above, for your source review, and for your support. I'm sure the biliteral Bo would join me in offering thanks, though for overall brevity Tan Dun beats her. – Tim riley talk 07:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I found the article on Bax to interest me greatly and the article looks well-written, structured and comprehensive. It is worthy of an FA in my eyes. Z105space (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Z105space; your kind comments and your support are gratefully received. Tim riley talk 19:27, 29 October 2015 (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/Arnold_Bax/archive1&oldid=1136098861"