Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Felix Mendelssohn/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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2018 [1].

Felix Mendelssohn[edit]

Nominator(s): Smerus (talk) 10:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the composer Felix Mendelssohn. It went to GA status some time ago, was recently thoroughly revised and has just had a peer review which resulted in further additions, corrections and rewriting. Felix deserves a FA and I hope this - subject to your constructive comments and the changes that they produce - is it. Smerus (talk) 10:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gerda[edit]

I enjoyed the fruitful dialogue in the peer review, and support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest scaling up the op. 61 and 64 images done
  • File:Mendelssohn_Bartholdy.jpg has two identical tags and needs a US PD tag done
  • File:Mendelssohn_Bartholdy_1821.jpg: when/where was this first published? Not known: painted 1821, and artist died 1854
  • What is the earliest publication we do know of? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Octetp1.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Mendelssohn_Wedding_March_Theme.jpg, File:Mendelssohn_VnConcert_op64_2mvt.png, File:Mendelssohn_oregan_sonatas.jpg, File:Elijah_arranged_for_duet_1.jpgdone
  • For the last of these, was the arrangement published in 1847? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Mendelssohn-Denkmal-Leipzig_Kohut-1-S41-cropped.jpg: if the photographer is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago?We don't: is there anything I can do about this?
  • File:DPAG_2009_Felix_Mendelssohn_Bartholdy.jpg: according to Commons, German stamps are eligible for copyright protection. Is there anything that I can do about this?Nikkimaria (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC) now deleted--Smerus (talk) 11:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Nikkimaria, many thanks for your comments, see my comments above. I am not very familiar with the image protocols on WP, is there anything I can do about the last two images on your list, or will they have to be axed? Also, does File:Mendelssohn_Bartholdy_1821.jpg need a remedy? Best regards, --Smerus (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless there's another reason why the stamp would be PD, it will likely need to be removed. For the others, see above. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dear Nikkimaria, I have deleted the stamp and the old photo of the statue (see above). I have replaced the stamp with the portrait by Schaow, which I believe is fit for purpose by WP standards. I am unclear of the import of your queries as regards 'published' in relation to File:Mendelssohn_Bartholdy_1821.jpg and File:Elijah_arranged_for_duet_1.jpg. Neither of these as far as I am aware appeared in a printed publication (although of course they may well have done - I don't know how to ascertain this). Both are in public collections (Bodleian and Library of Congress respectively). The latter has therefore the same status as File:Octetp1.jpg - does it therefore not simply need the US PD tag (which it has)? With thanks, --Smerus (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • {{PD-US}} is appropriate when the image was published, not simply created, before 1923. If neither of these images appeared in a printed publication, then that's probably not the most appropriate tag for them. (The same applies to File:Octetp1.jpg - because of its small size I thought it was a published edition, my apologies for missing that it is also a manuscript.) Depending on when the images were digitized, {{PD-US-unpublished}} may work. It's also possible that the holding libraries would have information on publication history. The portrait at least appears to have been used for CD and book covers. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Nikkimaria, thanks for your continuing advice. It looks like {{PD-US-unpublished}} is OK for the manuscripts. I am not sure why File:Mendelssohn_Bartholdy_1821.jpg, which is a portrait like the other portraits, can't be treated, as they are, simply as a work of art. Best, --Smerus (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other portraits are known to have been exhibited or published, unless I've overlooked something? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, might be missing it on that page, but do we know when the Bodleian received it and when it was first exhibited? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nikkimaria,

The Bodleian inform me as follows:

CARL JOSEPH BEGAS 1794-1854)

Felix Mendelssohn (1809-1847)

1821

Oil on canvas, 182 x 140 mm

Provenance: Given by the artist to Dr Johann Ludwig Caspar; given by the daughters of Dr Caspar to Lili Wach (1845-1910), the composer’s daughter, in 1896; her daughter, Maria Wach (1877-1964), from whom it was purchased by the Bodleian as part of her family papers and memorabilia purchase completed in 1970)

Exhibition: Oxford, 1997, no. 5

Literature: Crum and Ward Jones, vol. 2, p. 57 [Catalogue of the Mendelssohn papers in the Bodleian Library, Oxford: Printed music and books]

MS. M. Deneke Mendelssohn e. 5

Best, --Smerus (talk) 17:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, okay, that's going to be a problem - if the earliest exhibit was 1997, it's not eligible for either PD-URAA or PD-US-unpublished. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, Nikkimaria, is there no alternative to removal? Can I change it into a file on English Wikipedia (as I seem to recall is sometimes done)? Or should I approach the Bodleian direct for some permission? If the latter, what exactly do I need from them? Pardon for my ignorance in such matters - Best, --Smerus (talk) 09:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You would be able to upload locally on English Wikipedia if it were PD in the US but not elsewhere - at the moment we're struggling with the opposite. Given what you've described about the provenance, it seems unlikely the Bodleian would have held copyright, but they may have more information about publication history. Basically the issue is that the image currently falls into the 1978 to 2002 abroad bracket, which places copyright expiration in 2047; in order to use it we need to find information placing it in a different bracket, or attempt a fair-use claim. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. I'd suggest adding some of the provenance information from the Bodleian to the image description, but that seems reasonable. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great, I've done this. Fingers crossed. Many thanks for your help and advice.--Smerus (talk) 15:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Double sharp[edit]

Likewise, having enthusiastically participate in the PR, I am very happy to support this excellent article. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 08:41, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cassianto[edit]

I've gone through this and have made various fixes. That article, on the whole, is very good, but at the moment, is not quite there in terms of FA standard. There is a lot of unattributed statements; a few lines of awkward writing; inconsistent formatting issues with he refs; POV claims...etc. Below are just a few:

Childhood

  • But at that time, it was not considered proper... by whom? by Abraham and Felix, as stated in sentence, and in citation
  • Could we replace "well-known pianist" with "successful pianist"? That would be inaccurate. She was not 'successful' in that she never had a career as a pianist. She was however well-known as a pianist to the Berlin cognoscenti, as the citation supports
    • Then I would say so. "Fanny was well-known as a pianist to the Berlin cognoscenti." CassiantoTalk 11:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC) rewritten[reply]

Musical education

  • "Like Mozart before him, Mendelssohn was regarded as a child prodigy."I have deleted this sentence as you don't like it. but the contents of this and the next section demonstrate it to be true
    • No. my point was "regarded" by who? See my opening gambit, above. CassiantoTalk 11:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Early maturity

  • "At age 16 Mendelssohn wrote his String Octet in E-flat major, the first work which showed the full power of his genius" --POV This doesn't seem to me to be POV, but anyway I have rewritten
    • "the first work which showed the full power of his genius" looks like a personal point of view, whichever way you cut it. The fix is better, thanks.

Meeting Goethe and conducting Bach

  • "...the elderly Johann Wolfgang von Goethe." Why the adjective?to stress that one of the interesting aspects of the relationship was the difference in age. Not all readers will know Goethe's birth-date.
    • Elderly to him could be the difference of just a few years; or elderly in general, ie octogenarian). To clarify the point, perhaps say how much older they were and drop "elderly" altogether. rewritten

More to come. CassiantoTalk 10:41, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks for these comments, see my responses above --Smerus (talk) 10:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • and my responses to your responses....--Smerus (talk) 11:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Düsseldorf

Leipzig and Berlin

  • "He was deluged by offers of music from rising composers and would-be composers" -- is there a way of avoiding the repeated word here? rewritten

Mendelssohn in Britain

  • "He composed and performed, and he edited for British publishers the first critical editions..." -- and/and clash. I think this could be written with more precision. rewritten
  • "Mendelssohn also worked..." The adverb doesn't work in a new paragraph. If you are insistent on it, I'd join with the previous one; but if you're inclined to agree, I'd delete it. agreed
  • "at this period → "during this period" during is OK
  • "and her musical husband Prince Albert" -- "musical husband" is inappropriate and somewhat irrelevant. "On subsequent visits Mendelssohn met Queen Victoria and her husband Prince Albert, both of whom greatly admired his music" is better.rewritten

Personality

  • "Although the image was cultivated, especially after his death in the detailed family memoirs by his nephew Sebastian Hensel, of a man always equable, happy and placid in temperament, this was misleading."→ Was this Mendelssohn's image? "This was misleading" requires a modification to the prose before it. no it doesn't - Hensel helped to propagate an image which was misleading
    • I'm very sorry, but this sentence, to me, is unintelligible. I'm sure it's not me, so if you can't see it, then I think we would require another opinion on this. CassiantoTalk 20:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC) Let's see what others say[reply]
      • How about: "Mendelssohn’s image was presented as that of a man always equable, happy and placid in temperament, particularly in the detailed family memoirs by his nephew Sebastian Hensel published after the composer’s death; this was misleading." -- your use of a comma at the end didn't help, if I'm honest. CassiantoTalk 12:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thoughts on the above, Smerus? CassiantoTalk 08:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC) I am happy to go with something like this, and will rewrite accordingly[reply]
  • "On one occasion in the 1830s, when his wishes had been crossed, "his excitement was increased so fearfully ... that when the family was assembled ... he began to talk incoherently in English. The stern voice of his father at last checked the wild torrent of words; they took him to bed, and a profound sleep of twelve hours restored him to his normal state". Who said this? Attribution needed. If you read the note you will see the source
    • Thanks, I've read the source, but why should I have to click away from where I'm reading to find who said it? It's an unnecessary distraction. What harm is there in attributing what's said in quote marks to the person who said it, in the text? CassiantoTalk 20:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC) OK, have rewritten[reply]
  • thanks again for these comments, and see my responses above. Looking forward to next batch. --Smerus (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem. I'm enjoying this very much. I'm sorry for the stops and starts. CassiantoTalk 20:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Style

  • "Mendelssohn's compositional style can be seen as a reflection of his times. Schumann wrote of him "He is the Mozart of the nineteenth century, the most brilliant musician, the one who most clearly sees through the contradictions of the age and for the first time reconciles them." -- seen by who? Schumann? Attribute in the text to avoid future take asking "who". OK, have rewritten, but see my comments at end
  • "Secondly..." in a new para does not seem correct. Surely, this adverb is linked to to "first..." in the para before it? A new paragraph should be new altogether. OK, have rewritten
  • "The absence of significant stylistic development during Mendelssohn's career makes it appropriate to consider his works by genre, rather than in order of composition." -- appears unsourced and ends in no citation. OK, have rewritten, but see my comments at end

Early works

  • Is there a reason why you link C.P.E Bach twice; once in this section and secondly in the musical education section? as mentioned above, I deliberately repeat links in the music section which have already been made in the life section. Rhis is for the convenience of readers, especially in long articles. I have seen this practised in other FA articles.
  • "...which justify claims frequently made..." by who? as per citation - see my comments at end

Chamber music

  • "In particular, his String Quartet No. 6, the last of his string quartets and his last major work – written following the death of his sister Fanny – is both powerful and eloquent." POV. Who described it as "both powerful and eloquent"? OK, have rewritten, but see my comments at end

Piano music

  • I may've missed it, but who is Glenn Stanley? OK, have rewritten, but see my comments at end
  • The last para of this section closes without a citation, it appears. OK, have rewritten, but see my comments at end

Opera

  • "Although he never abandoned the idea of composing a full opera..." -- new para, new noun.sorry, don't understand the point you are seeking to make
    • Paragraphs should not start with pronouns. I see this has since been fixed. CassiantoTalk 14:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should finish this later. CassiantoTalk 09:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your comments. I have made a number of changes as a consequence, not all of which I am entirely happy with. In particular your accent on physically naming in the sentence the authority whose name is clear from the citation seems to me to be over meticulous (I won't quite say nit-picking). I don't think the reader will be especially illuminated by having the name of Mercer-Taylor in a sentence, particularly as there is not a Peter Mercer-Taylor article in WP, and i don't feel that this is required by the FA standards. But let it be so. If any other editors are interested in commenting on this, I should be glad to see their views. A couple of sentences, which served merely as guidance to what was coming next but served no other vital purpose, I have deleted , or given a functional citation (e.g. to other piano pieces) although I am not convinced this is necessary. Best, --Smerus (talk) 13:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you weren't entirely happy with my edits, then you should've stuck to your guns; you should not have gone and fixed them to keep me happy and in doing so, I think you've undermined your own FAC. The naming of who said what is important as it eliminates the need to question who said it. What I've found particularly frustrating with this article is coming across a piece of quoted text, or an opinion, and finding that it is not beeing attributed to anyone. It makes me feel inclined to either add a {{who}} tag to find out who said it, go to the talk page to ask who said it, or needing to click away from where I'm reading in order to find out who said it, whether it be in a footnote or an outside source. As a reader I do not want to have to do that and you most certainly do not speak for me when you say you can't imagine a reader not being "especially illuminated" by having the name of [someone] in a sentence to whom the quote belongs to. I'm sorry you've felt the need to offer me a shit sandwich interms of feed back. I'll continue to read through and I'll switch to a weak support as it is clear a lot of time has been spent on this. CassiantoTalk 14:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't mistake me, I am very grateful for your opinions and considerations. I was prepared to over-ride my inclinations in some cases, and indeed I did so. If I felt convinced you had no grounds, I wouldn't have made the concessions I did. That's not the same as being convinced you were right, of course. As mentioned above, I'd welcome opinion or guidance on this from other editors. Best, --Smerus (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe it's a stylistic choice to attribute statements in the text; it's one, I see, that you and I will just have to beg to differ on. CassiantoTalk 14:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi[edit]

  • Very many thanks, Lingzhi, for pointing this out, and for the useful tool. I believe all notes now corrected; there are some sources which have no links pointing to them. Best, ----Smerus (talk) 12:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed a couple. Note use of {{harvtxt}}. Good luck.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aha, many thanks! Will deal with the others in this way.--Smerus (talk) 14:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Edwininlondon[edit]

Lots of activity today .. sorry if any of these comments were already addressed today:

  • an infobox would be nice Sorry, I profoundly disagree
  • deliberately decided -> can one decide un-deliberately? One cannot: I have changed
  • (Letter to Felix Mendelssohn of 8 July 1829) -> I'm not sure this is needed here. Unnecessary detail have cut out 'Mendelssohn'
  • regarded as a child prodigy.[by whom?] -> I'm fairly sure you are dealing with this, but just in case I'm highlighting it dealt with
  • After the family moved to Berlin, all four Mendelssohn children -> I found this confusing because they moved to Berlin when he was 2 and the previous sentence describes activity at age 6 now rewritten to clarify
  • He chose this position although -> somehow this decision is now discussed in 2 paragraphs. Better if it's just in 1.rewritten
  • "historical concerts" -> a bit mysterious as to why this is a quote or by whom now rewritten to clarify
  • he would "never cease to endeavour to gain his approval [...] although I can no longer enjoy it" -> mix of he and I No: the 'he' prefacing the quote clearly refers to Felix, and the 'I' is the quote as cited
  • the King's request -> is that capital correct? Yes
  • his former teacher Ignaz Moscheles -> not sure he needs to be reintroduced, I think Moscheles suffices dealt with
  • (Letter to Rebecka Mendelssohn Bartholdy, Soden, 22 July 1844) -> not needed I think Agree to differ
  • "where it is to be hoped there is still music, but no more sorrow or partings." -> check whole article against punctuation and quotation rules to be sure, but this one I think should end with ". No: Where quoted extract ends with a full stop, full stop should be inside quote marks
  • jejune -> unusual word I think. Perhaps better to use a more common one? It's in any dictionary. We're not here
  • "to assimilate the dynamic trajectory of "external form" to the "logical" unfolding of the story of the theme" -> quotations within quotations should be single quotes done
  • "to assimilate the dynamic trajectory of "external form" to the "logical" unfolding of the story of the theme" -> source? citation is quite clear
  • his three piano quartets, (1822–1825; -> I don't think you need that comma done
  • its intellectual grasp -> two times grasp in same sentence In the next seentence I think, have changed
  • Mendelssohn wrote the concert overture The Hebrides (Fingal's Cave) in 1830 -> both links not needed, both already linkedI have consciously relinked works and people when they first appeared in the first half of the article, for convenience of readers - applies to next 2 comments as well)
  • was written for Ferdinand David. -> already linked
  • of Beethoven, Brahms, and Bruch -> maybe run the article through duplinks
  • nineteenth century and 19th century are used. Pick one now 19th, except quotes and source titles where 'nineteenth' is used
  • "virtually alone" -> according to whom? as per the citation
  • (including of course his own music) -> that's 2 sets of parentheses on same line, maybe better to rephrase done

Edwininlondon (talk) 13:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I give my supporton prose. Great piece of work.Edwininlondon (talk) 11:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Support from Tim riley[edit]

A few minor points that occur to me on rereading since the PR:

  • Childhood
    • "a pianist well-known to Berlin" – I don't think this wants the hyphen. If I have it aright it's "a well-known pianist" but "a pianist who is well known" agreed, done
  • Meeting Goethe and conducting Bach
    • "the revival of J. S. Bach's music" – having already mentioned him by surname alone in this paragraph I don't think you need his initials here. agreed, done
  • Düsseldorf
    • "Mozart's Don Giovanni" – Mozart has already been mentioned in the text and the blue link ought to be moved up to there. agreed, done
    • "direction of ...the editorship of ...and director of" – for consistency, perhaps "director of" should be "direction of". agreed, done
    • "he accepted the latter in 1835" – an old-fashioned pedant (e.g. me) might object that you can't have the latter of three; other people might tell the pedant to get a life. uh, far be it from me, of course, to suggest to anyone, least of all you, Tim, to get a new life, but....
    • the word "amongst" appears nine times in the text, and one begins to notice it after a while. Perhaps a few plain "amongs" here and there? This is not the first time you have caught me out in my 'amongst' addiction. Believe me, I am now regularly taking the medicine, and have sought to eradicate the traces of my depravity in the article
  • Mendelssohn in Britain
    • "In the course of his ten visits to Britain during his life" – as he made no posthumous ones I might rejig this slightly on the lines of "Mendelssohn made a total of ten visits to Britain, totalling about 20 months; he won..." agreed, done
  • Symphonies
    • "orchestra of the Royal Philharmonic Society" – the RPS wasn't Royal yet. corrected
  • Other orchestral music
    • Second para: if we're giving Calm Sea and Preposterous Voyage its German title in brackets we might do the same for The Fair Melusine. agreed, done

Nothing to frighten the horses there, and I am very pleased to add my support for the promotion of this fine article, which seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. It has sent me to my shelves to get down some Mendelssohn CDs: deeply enjoyable, so thank you, Smerus. – Tim riley talk 13:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Tim for your comments and support. My meta-comments above in tangerine. I too have been relistening, just today to the op. 80 quartet, which so violently disproves that M. had 'lost his mojo', and that he might yet have breached new musical ear- and mind-scapes.Smerus (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (LOL at "Preposterous Voyage"!) Just on a personal note, while I agree that the charges laid against most of the late works certainly do not apply to M's Op. 80, when listening to it just now I kept getting involuntarily reminded of Beethoven's Op. 95, and unlike the reminiscences of it and Op. 132 that permeate M's Op. 13, this resemblance doesn't entirely work in M's favour for me. Really sorry for providing more of the traditional equivocation, though I must say that I deeply enjoyed it despite these involuntary reminisces. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 13:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

The sources themselves are generally fine, but there are various formatting issues that need to be attended to:

  • Page range formats should be consistent throughout. Refs 34 and 131 are a couple of examples of non-standard formats but there are others.
  • Some page ranges (47, 53, 55 et al) include hyphens which should be ndashes
  • There's variation in the ways that retrieval dates are presented – we have "Retrieved", "retrieved" and "accessed". I suppose this is because sometimes you use cite templates and sometimes not; whether or not you use them, the formats should be consistent.
  • Ref 72 is missing a p. number (the citation is to a two-volume work)
  • The formats of the online non-Harvard citations are likewise somewhat varied. The essential elements are title, publisher and retrieval date; these are not always immediately clear – in 183 for example. In some instances I think you are confusing title with publisher, as for example in 177, where "Music and the Holocaust" is the title – the publisher is "World ORT". Cite templates have their limitations, but they do help help in achieving consistency in citation formats. I would format 177 thus, using cite web template:
  • 177. "Music and the Holocaust: Carl Orff". World ORT. Retrieved 3 December 2017.
  • Can Werner 1963 truly be described as a "modern" biography in 2017?
    • It's eleven years younger than I am, so of course it's modern. Tim riley talk 18:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can "Schmooze" be justified as a high-quality reliable source?

I wish I had time to read and review the text, as I would normally enjoy doing for any composer article, but other pressures prevent this at the moment. I'm pleased to see that the article is currently well supported by reviewers. Brianboulton (talk) 15:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Brian for making the time to review sources. Nikkimaria very kindly helped with the dash/hyphen issue for me. I think I have now dealt with all the other issues. Hensel (1884) as a citation referred to the whole shebang - I will seek and add source that confirms that Hensel was piously lenient to his uncle. Best--Smerus (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mentioned 183, above, as one of the citations that was somewhat confusingly formatted, with no clear title or publisher. It's since become 182. My view is that the current format should be replaced by a simple citation to the book, and the link to the download included as an external link. Thus, I'd replace current 182 with Sheppard, Elizabeth (1891). Charles Auchester. Chicago: A.C. McClurg and Co. OCLC 2327181.. I would then add Full text of Charles Auchester by Elizabeth Sheppard (1891) to the External links. I think the remaining formatting issues are all resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Brian, I will revise accordingly, all now revised.--Smerus (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM[edit]

I'm thrilled to see an article about such an important figure here at FAC. A few of the questions I raise have also been raised on another FAC about a classical composer; they may come from a lack of knowledge about classical music combined with a MOS that is not well-suited to the topic!

  • First thing's first: File:Portrait of Felix Mendelssohn (1821).jpg. I'd whap PD-old on it and be done with it, but if we're sure that it's within copyright (bizarre though that seems to me), then it must be used in accordance with the NFCC. The problem is that (I'm sorry to say) this use is not acceptable under the NFCC. There's no way that a biography of a contemporary figure would get through FAC with a non-free image of them as a child, unless there was some particular reason to believe that their childhood appearance was very important for the article.Well, i am following the advice of Nikkimaria (above) on this, but if things get hairy I will try PD-OLD. I find the whole issue of copyright categories very confusing
  • "listings of recordings at amazon.com" I'd exclude this, but if it is being included, it would be "Amazon.com".rewritten
  • "his Overture and" Why caps?It was published specifically as an Overture, it was not e.g. a generic introduction to a suite
  • "and incidental music for A Midsummer Night's Dream," Slightly cryptic; in the sentence, "Midsummer Night's Dream" refers to the play, but the link is to the incidental music.rewritten
  • "the overture The Hebrides," Why italics? Would speech marks not be typical for shorter pieces like this?music titles in italics, as for books, is the norm
  • "his mature Violin Concerto, and his String Octet" I'm not sure how consistent this usage is with the MOS; are they "Short Works" or Long Works?this format is the norm
  • "his Violin Concerto" Again this format is the norm
  • Feel free to ignore this, but I would be inclined to merge "surname" and "childhood"- perhaps too "musical education", or the early parts of it.I feel free :-)
  • "manuscripts which she bequeathed" that? I'm Ok with which
  • "his String Octet in E-flat major, a" As above I'm Ok with music titles in the article
  • "as "mark[ing] the beginning of his maturity as a composer."[26] This" Is that consistent with MOS:LQ? All quotes in the article are consistent with MOS:LQ
  • "This Octet and his Overture to Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream," As above, capitalisation and linking issuesas above; linking rewritten
  • "famous Wedding March.)" Speech marks OK
  • "The Overture is perhaps" Now this is in italics; I confess I'm struggling to understand the formatting!corrected
  • "of Mendelssohn's opera, Die Hochzeit des Camacho." Was that M's only opera? If not, surely the comma should be removed? (If it was, please ignore.) corrected
  • "friend and correspondent, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe" Again, unless he was the only friend and correspondent, presumably the comma should be dropped? corrected
  • "overture Calm Sea and Prosperous Voyage, (Op. 27, 1828) and" Should the comma not appear after the parenthetical phrase? corrected
  • "references which Mendelssohn" that? I'm Ok with which
  • "score which he" Perhaps add a comma after score? corrected
  • "the editorship of the prestigious music journal, the Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung" Again, lose the comma? There's more than one prestigious music journal. (I'm also slightly puzzled about how this fits in to the sentence; was this part of his role in Leipzig or in Munich?) corrected
  • "of 'historical concerts' featuring" Why single quotes? corrected
  • "Schubert's Ninth Symphony and sent" Caps again seems right to me
  • "his oratorio Paulus, (the English" Is that comma necessary? seems right to me
  • " music for productions of Sophocles's Antigone (1841) and Oedipus at Colonus (1845), A Midsummer Night's Dream (1843) and Racine's Athalie (1845)." Some of these are the "cryptic" links I mentioned earlier, some aren't! corrected
  • "including string players Ferdinand David and Joseph Joachim and music theorist Moritz Hauptmann" the string players and the music theorist corrected
  • "met Queen Victoria and her husband Prince Albert, (himself a composer), who" Either lose the brackets or the first comma, surely. corrected
  • "soloist in Beethoven's Piano Concerto No. 4 and" Caps/speech marks/etc. I think this is OK
  • "sorrow or partings."[71]" Again, I'd put that period outside of the quotemarks no, per MOS - this is the end of the sentence quoted, therefore comes inside the quote marks
  • "temper which" Comma, or else change which to that? I'm happy with which

Stopping there for now; very engaging so far. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very many thanks for this scrutiny, see above in tangerine for my comments/actions. I look forward to your next batch of comments. --Smerus (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few more:

  • "Berlioz's overture Les francs-juges "the orchestration" Caps corrected
  • "Meyerbeer's opera Robert le diable "I conside" Again corrected
  • "professor of history" Your other mentions of professorships capitalise them, unless I am missing something. "Professor Surname", but " a professor of something", I think
  • "called 'Green Books' of" Why single quotes? corrected
  • "Meyerbeer's Robert le diable – an" Caps corrected
  • "opera which musically" that? agreed
  • "two features which characterized" Ditto agreed
  • "at the keyboard -"every morning," Is that dash right? corrected
  • "other 'modernists' sought" Why single quotes? corrected
  • Your blockquote style is apparently inconsistent; also, is the wikilink in the second necessary? More generally- you seem to alternate on whether you capitalise the R of romantic[ism], and link it in several places. I try to put long quotes in blockquotes, shorter ones in text. I use R for Romanticism, but the quote here uses r. I have removed link
  • "the String Octet (1825), the Overture A Midsummer Night's Dream (1826)" Similar worries to the above. sorted, I think
  • Generally, the music section has a lot of names of songs etc., so I'm not going to comment on all of them; just, generally, I'm raising the question! I also note that you shouldn't be worried about including redlinks if any of these pieces are notable; some editors seem to have a real aversion to redlinks, and that is regrettable! I will write short articles about some of these pieces over the holiday period
  • "These four works show an intuitive command of form, harmony, counterpoint, colour, and compositional technique, which justify claims frequently made that Mendelssohn's precocity exceeded even that of Mozart in its intellectual grasp." This doesn't feel very neutral cite clarified
  • "well-known Wedding March, was" Why italics? corrected
  • Songs Without Words is introduced several times corrected
  • "and their overwhelming popularity has itself caused many critics to underrate their musical value" That doesn't feel very neutral cite clarified
  • As example? ?
  • "the domination of Christianity."[149]" Again, I'd put the period outside the quotes corrected
  • "five settings of psalms for" Would that not be "The Psalms"? I'm not sure. rewritten
  • "his version of Psalm 42" Again- a cryptic link.rewritten
  • "song composition."[152] Many" Again, I'd put the period outside the quotes, but may be wrong. corrected
  • Is extemporise jargon? I had to look it up! A dictionary word, could be used for speech and for music, not jargon i would say
  • "as the 'classics') he" Why single quotes? rewritten
  • "as well, of course, as" Editorialising! corrected
  • "Such criticism of Mendelssohn for his very ability – which could be characterised negatively as facility" This feels like editorialising Heine's quote is a clear example of how criticism for ability "could be characterised negatively as facility"; the comment is therefore I believe a straightforward elaboration of the quote rather than editorializing
  • "his popularity and his Jewish origins irked Wagner sufficiently to damn Mendelssohn with faint praise," This too. cite given
  • "This was the start of a movement to downgrade Mendelssohn's status as a composer which lasted almost a century, the echoes of which still survive today in critiques of Mendelssohn's supposed mediocrity.[n 10]" This is definitely editorialising. Do you have a source for these claims? You cite an example, but we'd need a source identifying the trend; more than that, I'm not sure it could be uncritically presented in Wikipedia's neutral voice. I worry that the article could be read as coming from a particular perspective; one of the elements of that perspective might be to "rescue" Mendelssohn from "unfair" criticisms. See my comments at end. I've relegated this to a note and have rewritten
  • "Some readers, however, have interpreted Nietzsche's characterization of Mendelssohn as a 'lovely incident' as condescending.[176]" Why single quotes? corrected
  • "Mendelssohn's Wedding March from" Italics again corrected
  • When you mention M's popularity in England, do you perhaps mean Britain? You switch to British further down the paragraph. corrected
  • "Mendelssohn's sacred choral music, particularly the smaller-scale works, remains popular in the choral tradition of the Church of England." Reference?deleted
  • "Such opinions are evidence of how a more nuanced appreciation of Mendelssohn's work has developed over the last 50 years, together with the publication of a number of biographies placing his achievements in context." This does not feel neutral. see my comments at end
  • "All of Mendelssohn's oeuvre – including the most popular works such as the Violin Concerto and the Italian Symphony – has been explored more deeply, and prior concepts about the Victorian conventionality of the oratorio Elijah have been shed.[n 12] The frequently intense and dramatic world of Mendelssohn's chamber works has been more fully recognised. Virtually all of Mendelssohn's published works are now available on CD, and his works are frequently heard in the concert hall and on broadcasts.[198]" Again, this feels like editorialising; the neutrality is questionable, and the source is not clear, as examples are cited rather than scholars making a case for the view. see my comments at end

I think this article is a real achievement, and I personally enjoyed the passing references to various philosophers. In addition to a few writing questions I've raised, I think the neutrality towards the end of the article needs considering a little more closely; I think your perspective shines through a little at the end, which is probably more suited to a professional encyclopedia than a Wikipedia article! I may be wrong here (and may be wrong in a few of my suggestions above), but I do hope that my comments are useful regardless. (Also, please double-check my edits, but I can't see any being controversial.) Josh Milburn (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks again for these further comments. On reading the last sections of the article again in the light of your notes I have sensed that editorialising could be construed in some places and have rewritten/edited accordingly, including addition of citations where appropriate.--Smerus (talk) 11:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you able to revisit this soon, Josh? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry to be a bore, but I'm not comfortable supporting promotion at present; the use of a non-free image is bothering me (and I don't want to butt heads with Nikkimaria by suggesting that it should be marked as PD!), while I still feel that there are some style problems that shouldn't be present in a FA: for example, quote marks on some blockquotes but not on others, inconsistent capitalisation of romanticism (and related words), and inconsistent capitalisation of professor. I also feel there's some that/which confusion and some odd commas, but they're perhaps not the biggest problems in the world. I do wonder, too, whether there's still a particular perspective that the article is coming from, but I'll leave that to other reviewers. To be clear: I do think that the article is very strong, but I'm not convinced it's quite where it needs to be; it is, obviously, much harder to write an article on such a major figure, and I have never attempted it, so there is naturally much to commend! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • And there are many very capable editors who know a great deal about these things who have already supported the article, so maybe I'm getting hung up on nothing. I would not think it at all improper if the FA coordinators chose to afford my worries little weight. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Milburn, I would make the following meta-comments:

  • There is only one blockquote which includes quote marks at each end. This quote relays a conversation between Goethe and Zelter. It is not appropriate to remove the quote marks in these circumstances, as they are necessary to distinguish the speakers.
  • I give romanticism with a lower case R where it is so used in quotes. My understanding is that it is not acceptable to repunctuate quotes - unless someone can indicate to me a WP guidance which says otherwise.
  • On 'which' and 'that', I sometimes agree with you (in which cases I have changed the text) and sometimes don't. I hope you may agree to differ.
  • Professor - I have made one further correction. I don't believe there are any further miscapitalizations in the article, but if they are feel free to correct them accordingly.
  • On the issue of the picture - blowed if I understand the issues here, so I am always prepared to be guided by those who have more experience. I don't in fact comprehend how an image of a picture painted so long ago could possibly be construed as non-free, but I am not a copyright lawyer
  • As mentioned above I have since your previous marks extensively rewritten and recast parts of the article where I feel editorialising could possibly be construed, with the intention of maintaining neutrality.

Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken on the blockquotes; apologies for that mistake. On romanticism: I'm not talking about the quotes. I might be wrong (and I self-reverted) but I counted five instances with the lower-case r- this was one example of what felt like little imperfections that don't belong in a FA. And on the image: currently, it is included as a non-free image. It's usage must therefore meet the non-free content criteria. The present usage quite clearly does not. And I want to stress again that I am not opposing promotion. I just do not feel that I can support at this time. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image discussion[edit]

  • Josh Milburn, it seems that we seriously differ now only about the image; specifically that you feel it does not meet the non-free content criteria. I have now gone through WP:NFCC and WP:FUR. I would be grateful if you could indicate where it fails the criteria, as whilst it may be clear to you it is not alas to me. With thanks, --Smerus (talk) 08:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It fails NFCC#8. Readers can surely have a full understanding of the topic without seeing a picture of M when he was young; we wouldn't be having this conversation if this was a living or recently deceased person, as no one would have thought to include a non-free image of the subject when young. Given the age of the image, there's also every chance that it fails NFCC#1. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Josh Milburn, I must disagree with your interpretation(s). NFCC#8 reads "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." As it as essential part of FM's story that he was a child genius, a picture of him as a child does indeed (in my opinion, if not in yours) significantly enhance the reader's sense of what is being discussed. The age of the image has nothing to do with NFCC#1, which deals with the use of alternatives, of which none are known to me or any other source I have examined. Best, --Smerus (talk) 11:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not really want to get into a back-and-forth about this issue, and that is one of the reasons that I did not explicitly oppose. I am not going to get into that back and forth now, but will suggest that this image from a 1906 book may be a suitable alternative. Nikki? Josh Milburn (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - the issue was we couldn't find an early publication, so that would solve that problem nicely. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two points:

  • Thanks for the alternative proposal, but it's an extremely poor and in fact rather crude interpretation of the original picture, and therefore not attractive or appropriateas an illustration to the article; but
  • It was published in Boston in 1906. Can this be taken as evidence that the present article image was published in the US at that time. In which case we would have no problem with the original - or would we?

I have looked at a few other artworks illustrating FA articles. E.g.

  • File:George Frideric Handel by Balthasar Denner.jpg is flagged as {{PD-Art|PD-old-100-1923}}, with the rubric "The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain". This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain in the United States. In other jurisdictions, re-use of this content may be restricted; see Reuse of PD-Art photographs for details." No evidence is offered that the work was published or registered in the US before January 1, 1923.
  • Same goes for File:Mozart family crop.jpg, and a number of others.

I wonder why, therefore, the original image used in the article (File:Mendelssohn Bartholdy 1821.jpg), which I changed on Nikkimaria's advice, can't be reinstated? --Smerus (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not to get into an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but on a quick glance the sources provided for both of those images support publication and/or exhibition before 1923. (The "faithful reproductions" language refers to the fact that under US law, if you take a photo of a public-domain work, you don't get a copyright on the photo). If you contend that the image JM suggested is a copy of the original, then yes it can be taken as evidence, but if it's a reinterpretation then the issue is more complicated - see here. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria, Josh Milburn, I believe one can very strongly contend that JM's image is a copy (albeit not a very good one) of the original of File:Mendelssohn Bartholdy 1821.jpg. There is no 'reinterpretation' of stance, expression or other significant detail: the complex hair waves are closely imitated, as is the neckline of the garment, and the background is blank as in the original. I have consequently retagged File:Mendelssohn Bartholdy 1821.jpg with {{PD-Art|PD-old-100-1923}}, and am reinstating it in the article. I hope this may be acceptable to all. Best, --Smerus (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no objection to this, but leave it to Nikki to "sign off". It may be worth spelling this out on the image page so there's no further disagreement if Nikki is happy. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, as suggested. Many thanks to you both for helping to bring this to a satisfactory conclusion. All clear now (?) Ian Rose --Smerus (talk) 09:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Coordinator comments[edit]

I think there is a consensus to promote here. I've had a quick look at the issues that J Milburn raised, and while some of them are a matter of opinion, and other reviewers seem to feel the article is fine, there is still inconsistent capitalisation of "romanticism". And in terms of consistency, I believe that not all images have alt text. I think it should be all or none in this case. I'd also like someone to check duplinks as we seem to have quite a few and I can't really see that we need them all. This tool will highlight any duplication. Finally, we seem to have a few deadlinks, which I'd like to be cleared up before we promote. Sarastro (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro, thanks for this. I have now removed all the alts. The simplest answer for 'romanticism' has been to change all uses to lower case, which I have now done. As regards duplicated links, I have gone through again - links are duplicated in the Music section where there has been a mention in the Life section. I believe this to be a convenience for composer biographies where readers may tend to look at one section or another. (CF Richard Wagner FA). I have corrected the OCLCs where they were inaccurate, but have not identified any other dead links. Best, --Smerus (talk) 11:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Putting my oar in: I think there has indeed grown up an unwritten convention for composer life-and-works articles that it is helpful to readers to start afresh with the links in the Works section. Most if not all composer FAs follow this pattern, I think. – Tim riley talk 12:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The dead links are to a couple of the Grove Music articles (there is another but that is archived). These can be seen by clicking the "external links" in the toolbox on the left of this page. Maybe I'm missing something and we don't actually need them, but I'd like clarification before I promote. Sarastro (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also putting my oar in, stealing Tim's thunder if I might, I don't think alt text is a requirement for FAC, and I see he has removed some, so don't see as a deal breaker. Re 'romanticism', ideally the tile of major artistic movements should be capitalised, but obviously not in direct quotes. The dead-links are another matter. I have a sub to Grove if it would help. Ceoil (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I realise I am late here, but support on condition of fixing the dead links noted by Sarastro1 above, and having given a comprehensive, and utterly enjoyable, read through last night. Ceoil (talk) 10:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ceoil, thank you for your support. Sarastro, I have now corrected the Grove references, they now seem to work OK. As regards 'Romanticism', i would prefer using 'R' throughout, but there are a couple of occurrences in quotes where the original is in lower case. For the sake of uniformity (if that is indeed the criterion) I have changed to lower case throughout. However that means that the one occasion where 'R' was used in a quote is now rendered as "[r]omanticism"- not really ideal. It seems impossible to satisfy everyone on this point.--Smerus (talk) 13:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re capitalisation, then in IMO that the article is consistent is the main thing. Ceoil (talk) 14:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Ceoil, I believe it is indeed now consistent. --Smerus (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: In passing, I note that we have removed all alt text. This is certainly not a FA requirement, and makes no difference here, but I will observe (as I quite often do!) that I believe FAs should demonstrate best practice, and perhaps alt text is part of that best practice. But that is for the main author(s) to decide and I shall promote very shortly. Sarastro (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2018 (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/Felix_Mendelssohn/archive1&oldid=1138460581"