Wikipedia:Peer review/William Sterndale Bennett/archive1

This peer review discussion has been closed.

William Sterndale Bennett

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope, with cooperation of other editors, to raise it to GA (or maybe even FA) standard for WSB's bicentenary - 13 April 2016. I haven't touched it yet, and it is clear that many of the references will need to be at least reformatted, etc. All comments on the exisiting content of the article, and on what would make it stronger, will be very welcome.

Thanks, Smerus (talk) 09:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Tim riley

Not sure about changing the ref formats (all mine, I confess) but as the principal contributor so far I am as keen as Smerus is to get comments on the text. I think the Life section is possibly of GA quality, but the Music section needs much work. Tim riley talk 22:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! No affront intended, I mainly meant that some of the <ref name=> multiple references might need to be broken up to give page numbers. I agree that it is the music side that mainly needs to be revamped. I'm also thinking about the pics: I have a colour version of the 'student' picture (which btw is by James Warren Childe and is owned by the Royal Academy). The Millais portrait is in private ownership and alas no colour versions are available. Lower down in the article it might perhaps be better to use the Childe (colour) portrait of Mendelssohn, used in the Mendelssohn article.--Smerus (talk) 11:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RexxS

The text reads well, rarely requiring me to re-read it to understand what was intended. One place that stood out on first reading was the last paragraph of Early years: initially I wasn't sure which 'academy' was being referred to there; checking the dates involved a bit of scrolling and calculating before I could be sure that it was the Royal Academy of Music where he was still a pupil until 1836. Is there any value in using the generic "academy" as opposed to "Royal Academy" or "RAM" (as used later) in those contexts?

Happy with RAM for mentions after the first. Tim riley talk 17:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And now done. (Possibly reinstate an occasional "academy" later, for variety, when the context is crystal clear?) Tim riley talk 20:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. Variety in expression is one of the hallmarks of fine writing in English. I suspect that the use of 'academy' that made me pause had drifted away from the other mentions as the article expanded. Personally, I would prefer 'Academy' (when we mean the Royal Academy) over the generic 'academy', but I know that's not to everyone's taste. --RexxS (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the section Performer and teacher, From 1842 Bennett had been a director of the Philharmonic Society of London. - I don't find the use of the pluperfect tense with 'From' to be normal - I would have expected that tense to be used more in conjunction with 'before' or 'prior to'. The rest of the paragraph is written in the simple past tense.

Not sure why I put that retrospective construction in. I don't think we need it. Tim riley talk 17:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The use of short quotations to illustrate a point is fair use on Wikipedia, but I'm concerned that at least one quite large quotation, from F. G. Edwards in the Performer and teacher section, is used to present a point (i.e. although the work as a teacher would leave Bennett too tired to compose, he still must have found time to play the piano), where I would have expected the source to be summarised and referenced. If it were the only quotation in that section, it might be within our usual bounds, but there are three quotations in that section - perhaps a little too much? It would be worth re-evaluating the extent of the use of direct quotations within the article. The later sections contain quite a high proportion, both set-off using {{quote}} and inline.

I don't think this is more quote-heavy than other composer bios I have successfully taken to FA. Smerus, what think you? Tim riley talk 17:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Afterthought: yes, the 1903 quote is a bit of a whopper. No copyright problems, but perhaps it is rather a slab. Smerus, do you have a view? Tim riley talk 19:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed rather lumbering and I would have thought could have been summarized on the lines suggested by RexSS.--Smerus (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right ho! I'll take it away and rejig. More anon. Tim riley talk 22:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs an infobox, if only to avoid readers having to search through the text as far as Later compositions to find his place of death and his final resting place (the latter being a quite significant piece of information).

We generally avoid them for composer FAs, rightly I think. They are excellent where career stats (bishops, cricketers, politicians etc - I've just done one for a Dean) can be usefully summarised, but for composer biogs the little additional info not already alongside in the lead does not seem to justify the required amount of prime real estate on the page, though I know opinions differ on this, and some people believe passionately that every article should have a box. Tim riley talk 17:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Afterthought: I'm not convinced that place of death and burial are key information (the Oxford Dictionary of Music, the Oxford Companion to Music and Britannica don't mention the latter) but if others think they are key we can easily add them to the lead – indeed, should do so, as all key info is supposed to be there. I don't recall any composer biographies where we have added burial places to the lead, though I may be wrong. – Tim riley talk 18:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have thought Westminster Abbey deserves a mention as burial place in the lead. St. John's Wood I think can certainly stay in the article. If the lead is thus adjusted I believe we will have adequately catered for thanatophilic readers without recourse to an infobox.--Smerus (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough! I've added places of death and burial to the lead. Tim riley talk 22:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I won't be offended if you don't introduce an infobox, and I think your suggestions about including a few extra key facts in the lead is sensible. That should also satisfy even the non-thantophiles who would be interested to learn that Bennett's stature was sufficient to warrant a burial in Westminster Abbey. --RexxS (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for the references, the first inline citation was added in 2007 and used {{cite web}}, so I suppose there is an argument for regularising the references into the CS1 style. I can do that if required, but I'll defer to Tim's preference as the principal author, since that seems the most practical way of deciding in this case. --RexxS (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly happy with any consistent ref system, as long as I haven't got to wrestle with templates, which I'm hopeless at and get me seriously hot and bothered. Possibly a sign of my Georgian antiquity. When I have collaborated with template fans they have kindly done the necessary on my behalf. Smerus, what say you to Rex's kind offer? Tim riley talk 17:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should be very grateful to RexSS for undertaking this if he is willing.--Smerus (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I'm struggling to finish off the references for Albert Ketèlbey today, but I promise I'll get to grips with regularising the citations on Bennett as soon as I can. At first glance, it looks like an easier task, but I'm wary of tempting fate with such predictions. --RexxS (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't make a point of it, but I hope we can avoid having the explanatory notes labelled with letters rather than numbers. I have occasionally seen it done thus, and it looks decidedly odd. Someone once told me when I was flailing about trying to use templates that Roman numerals are available for explanatory footnotes, which I think would look very professional and appealing. But plain numbers will be fine. Just my two-penn'orth. Tim riley talk 20:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton

I have not looked at the above review comments, so I may be raising points that already have your attention. Apologies if that is so. My comments are predominantly minor quibbles: Lead

I'm not a particular fan of one-line paragraphs, and neither, it seems is MOS:PARAGRAPHS. The opener here would easily integrate withe the second para.
"Leipzig, Germany": with the link, I think the country is unnecessary.

Early years

The phrase "with whom he enjoyed a happy collaboration" is slightly ambiguous, since "he" is not altogether clear. I would say: "with whom the elder Bennett enjoyed..." etc
Also, I'm not clear where this information is cited. The footnote [n1] deals with other information, and would I think be better located after the first sentence of the paragraph.
"He did not undertake vocal studies..." – again an ambiguous pronoun. As you've named half a dozen people since mentioning Ketelby, he should be named here.

Mendelssohn and Germany

"In May 1836 Bennett travelled to Düsseldorf to attend the Lower Rhenish Music Festival..." I gather from reading on that this was in response to Mendelssohn's invitation three years previously. Do we know why there was such a delay in taking the offer up?
Too much "during" in the second paragraph. Try to replace at least one of them.

Performer and teacher

In my view the Edwards quote is, at almost 200 words, too long. Is it all necessary? There are no striking phrases, and I would have thought the general sense could be conveyed by a couple of short paraphrase sentences. The issue is: do we need the voice of Edwards to tell us this stuff?
Stanford should have his full name at first mention,
I'm a bit concerned that sentence beginning "Stanford wrote..." contains two apparently unrelated statements, so that the "and" conjunction is inapplicable.

Conductor and professor

"Bach Society": there were many – can you identify? Obviously you can't mean this one, but perhaps some forerunner?

Principal of Royal Academy of Music

Comma required after "Jenny Lind"
In this section the composer Parry is first mentioned, and linked, by surname only. Later he is mentioned as "Hubert Parry" (and linked again. The forename should be used at first mention, linked there and not again.
More generally, there is the question of when first names can be dispensed with on the initial mention. I would reserve this dustinction for composers, writers and other artists of the highest rank (Mozart, Dickens, Tolstoy, Shakespeare, Picasso, etc) and not for honourable middle rankers such as Sullivan and Fauré (Tim may fall out with me over this), and certainly not for politicians. It is general in English formal writing to give politicians their full names on first occurence in a text, even prime ministers.
- You bet, Boulton! Middle rankers, forsooth! Hyde Park at dawn at a date to be arranged. Bring your own second. Tim riley talk 20:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whose judgement is it thst the Covent Garden orchestra was "the best"?

Later compositions

I find it odd that Bennett's death is included in a section entitled "Later compositions". Shades of the famous Monty Python song. Perhaps "Later life", or even the extended form of "Later life, illness and death" would be more approporiate?

Publications, honours and memorials

"not only at Cambridge but also at the London Institute": "Not only but also..." is rather a journalistic format, used to highlight an element of the unexpected, e.g. "not only at Cambridge but also at the London Zoo". I think I'd just say: "As well his teaching at Cambridge he also lectured at the London Institute..." etc, or something neutrally similar.

Music

A minor quibble, but again I'm inclined to think the quotation is too long for this fairly short section, accounting as it does for around one-third of the text. Consider paraphrase etc.
The final paragraph, dealing with recordings, is not cited to a source.

I found this a delightful article, and hope you'll take it to FAC. Composr biographies are becoming rarer these days – but I still have Ketèlbey to look forward to. Brianboulton (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Brian. I'm not tinkering with the article itself yet but wiill take all these points on board when I launch myself at it , probably later this week.--Smerus (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

@RexxS:, @Tim riley:, @Brianboulton:, Thanks all, I have taken all these points (I hope) and have also expanded the article considerably. Now to think about GA.--Smerus (talk) 10:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, Smerus. I've been waiting for the article to settle down a bit before trying to regularise the citations, as I didn't want to cause any problems while it was being heavily revised. If you would still like me to do the same sort of tidying as I did on Albert Ketèlbey, please ping me when you are (relatively) satisfied with the text and I'll have a go at the references. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS: Thanks for this offer. I'm not planning any big changes in the near future (just the odd mistypings when I catch them) so if you are willing to give the references a once-over I should be extremely grateful. Best, --Smerus (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]