Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Charles Villiers Stanford/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 SandyGeorgia 01:52, 24 January 2012 [1].

Charles Villiers Stanford[edit]

Charles Villiers Stanford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Tim riley (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford was a major figure in British and indeed international music in the late 19th century, but was overshadowed in the 20th by Elgar and the best of Stanford's own pupils such as Vaughan Williams and Holst. As a teacher his influence was immense; if there was a more important teacher in British musical history I can't think who he or she was. Stanford was a cantankerous cuss, but an interesting one, and I hope I've done him justice, after an exceedingly thorough peer review. Tim riley (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Comment - The description above neatly captures the contradictions of the man and the musician: not the easiest of subjects. I think the article Tim has prepared steers its way through the shoals most adeptly. As usual from this source, the quality of the information provided is high, the presentation is carefully balanced, and the style and editing are exemplary. I feel the article as a whole would happily grace another famous encyclopaedia, whose name I shall not mention. MistyMorn (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much indeed for that encouraging contribution. Tim riley (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Congratulations on a thorough and readable article. Unfortunately its been a while since I looked at the FA criteria, so this is very much an off the cuff remark: after the richness of the Life section the sub-sections of the Works sections appear relatively thin. I appreciate useful sources may be at a premium. Might anything be done? (I feel like such a miserable little so-and-so for even saying this...) almost-instinct 19:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, a very fair comment. I wondered as I wrote whether the Works section was substantial enough. My thinking was that as little of Stanford's work is familiar it would be unhelpful to write too much detail about it; I sought to give a general overview. But there is plenty of critical material I can draw on if the consensus is that I should expand the Works section. Thank you for this thoughtful comment. Tim riley (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd second that. He was good at concertos, and though his reputation may generally rest on Anglican church music, his orchestral music seems to me often to be remarkably good, belying his notoriety as a crotchety old boor. Just my superfluous POV, MistyMorn (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Very impressive, good background. Minor remarks, written as I notice (and some may be caused by my limited English): A link to today's city of Leipzig doesn't help much to understand where he studied. I recommend to link to University of Music and Theatre Leipzig, the appropriate history section there.

Done. I can't think why I didn't do so before. Thank you. Tim riley (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same goes for Berlin.

Less clear cut, I think. Stanford studied there, but not as a student of any academy. Tim riley (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"When he was ten" is fine with me, but I have been corrected to "age ten".

Gerda, "age ten" is American English. We don't say that here. Brianboulton (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was "corrected" by Americans then, thanks for teaching me these little differences, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"On his return to Dublin, his godmother having left Ireland, he took lessons from Henrietta Flynn", I don't know where to put the godmother info.

This is what is technically known as an "absolute" construction, a device inherited from Latin: "X having done this, Y did that". I find it useful for cutting out extra verbiage in appropriate circumstances. Tim riley (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"During second spell in London" is a phrase I don't know.

I think it is idiomatic in this context. Tim riley (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Career" is repeated in two sentences in a row.

I hadn't spotted that. But I can't think how to reword it to avoid the repetition. Tim riley (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"vocal music, both ecclesiastical and secular", for Bach I would simply say "sacred and secular".

Much better! Done, thank you. Tim riley (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"orchestral works (a rondo for cello and orchestra and a concert overture)", suggested "orchestral works such as a concert overture and a Rondo for cello and orchestra".

Point taken, but this came up at PR and this is the best I can come up with to avoid repetitive words. Tim riley (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"classical or the modernist camps", perhaps use quotation marks for the two "parties".

Hmm. I'll ponder, but am not persuaded at first glance. Tim riley (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"St Nicholas's church", don't ask me, I know it as Nikolaikirche, the "s's" is not even in the article's name.

I'm happy to call it the Nikolaikirche, and have so redrawn. Tim riley (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the same line, I try to avoid Brahms's and Strauss's, saying "by Brahms" ...

An English drafting style, which I will defend stoutly! Tim riley (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"the Bach Choir", if the article is part of the name, I would capitalize it.

I dither over this. Happy to go with the consensus. Tim riley (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final comment: learned a lot! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Gerda. These are very useful points, and as you can see I have acted on most of them, noting above those few points on which I disagree. Tim riley (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: I know him for "Beati" (quorum via integra est), and wonder if that piece might be mentioned as an example for his remembered church music, with some words on how he achieved to set bliss and blessedness to music with such simple means as having all voices sing in the middle of the piece "beati" softly on a major chord and then repeat it even softer on the same chord in minor. There must be reliable sources. A friend died this morning, but I had thought of it before I knew that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll investigate further, but probably not until the FAC is concluded. Tim riley (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, from my point of view, thanks for acting on the comments above, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Gerda. The article is decidedly better for your suggestions. Tim riley (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • FN 17: which Stanford?
  • FN 13: missing closing quotation mark
  • FN 15, 37, 112: spacing
  • Be consistent in whether the comma is included in the linked title or not (ex FN 52 vs 53)
  • FN 59: punctuation (compare 60)
  • Be consistent in how seasons are punctuated (compare FNs 67 and 78)
  • FN 107: missing opening quotation mark
  • Check alphabetization of sources list
  • Be consistent in whether publisher locations are provided for books or not
  • Be consistent in how editors are notated. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As always, I'm grateful for your unblinking editorial eye. I'll follow these points up without delay and report back over the weekend. Tim riley (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now done. I am, not for the first time, staggered by the pinpoint accuracy of your proof-reading skill. I have, I think, attended to all the points above with the exception of the last, where I can detect no sins of omission or commission in what I have written. Enlightenment humbly sought. Tim riley (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to sometimes be using "(ed.)" and sometimes simply "ed." - is that a function of the templates? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see. Well it seems to be, as you say, a function of the templates. The unbracketed eds are from the template that applies to chapters within a book; the bracketed ones are for the editors of someone else's work. Phew! Tim riley (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, Tim: it's of your usual high quality. By today's standards, the man was a fusty old fart, occupying a key position during a very unfortunate period in English musical history. Just in terms of teaching and theory, the Germans and Americans – particularly the Jewish experts among them, I note – showed how wanting the English tradition was (although it got a lot better after Stanford's death). However, Michael Tippett, a great among 20th-century composers, is on record in a Mischa Scorer BBC documentary called A Time to Dance (1991, I see) as saying that one of Stanford's publications on music theory was a turning point in his musical self-education. I had a copy of this doco on VCR tape, but it perished many years ago. I wonder whether you know how it can be acquired. Melvyn Bragg was the interviewer and narrator. I looked up the BBC's archives/records a couple of years ago and it was most unpromising. Tony (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check with my (few and tenuous) contacts and report back on the BBC point. Meanwhile, thank you very much for your kind remarks about the article. Tim riley (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I raised a number of issues at peer review; these were all addressed. No doubt other tweaks around the edges could be applied, but the article is nevertheless of first-class quality and thoroughly deserving of promotion. Tim is one of the few editors currently writing quality composer biographies, though he does tend to specialise in English old farts. I expect he'll do Parry next (and make a superb job of it). Brianboulton (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that! Passing through in haste and will address the various points made by earlier contributors tomorrow. I will merely note that Stanford was not an English old fart but an Irish one. Yes, Parry is on my to-do list. And RVW. And Holst. Moreover, Ssilvers and I have Sullivan on the tapis for submission sine die. Tim riley (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Page numbers added. The Holst image is, according to the National Portrait Gallery site, by Herbert Lambert (died in 1936), so 70 years is correct. (Link to NPG page: [2]). I don't know how to reflect the Commons tag for Coleridge-Taylor in en:WP, but I have an alternative image of Coleridge-Taylor from a UK publication pre-1923 if needed. Tim riley (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think just changing the licensing info for File:CT-Holst-RVW-Ireland.jpg (replacing the life+100 with the life+70 tag) would be sufficient. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Nikkimaria; now done. Tim riley (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support generally due to my peer review of same.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who deniges of it? I am vastly obliged for your help at PR, and for your support here. Tim riley (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2012 (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/Charles_Villiers_Stanford/archive1&oldid=1138457372"