Talk:Requiem (Fauré)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerda! It would be a pleasure to review this. I am new to music articles, so please correct me if I go wrong. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 05:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I only expanded, together with Tim riley, who will know a lot more about the details. I have no time today, but will look later. With death being mentioned in today's article,- it's a good match. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Gabriel Fauré composed his Requiem Articles typically with the name of the subject. Not an issue, I was just curious as to why "Requiem" comes later.

There are many compositions called Requiem, it's nice to know from the start who did this one, also to see the composer active ;) --GA

in Latin, is the best Why is there a comma here?

I removed it--GA

~~Citations are typically excluded from the lead. Is the fact you have added a citation for here not mentioned in the main text?~~

This is a key statement by the composer about his work, - lead material. Quotations in the lead need to be sourced,- that's all I know. --GA

Has the quotation been included in the main text? Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 12:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The quotation was in the main text, under "reception", - perhaps a bit misleading. I am not familiar with Tim's way of referencing, but named it, for clarity, rather than referencing the same page in the same book twice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like the lead to be a subset of the main text, but if you feel it is improper to add the quote somewhere else in the article then let us have it here... Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 03:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a misunderstanding. I agree. It's in both lead and history, same ref. We have to have refs in the lead for every quote, even if repeated later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~What is a liturgy?~~

The order of a church service, - let's link if it needs explanation, --GA

Simpler to link. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 12:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was done right after I wrote "let's link" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly we don't see whose turn it is to respond. I will check what I can now. Thank you for your patience, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History

and his mother's death two years "followed by his mother's death"?

not sure, ask Tim, - I don't know if a death "follows" (English is not my first language) --GA

I'd be happy with either. I think it works without the "followed by", but I don't object to it. Tim riley talk 19:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we all speak so differently. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 03:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

with five movements (Introit and Kyrie, Sanctus, Pie Jesu, Agnus Dei and In Paradisum), but did not include his Libera me. Source?

later, or Tim --GA

Added a page ref to Nectoux. Tim riley talk 19:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1888, under the composer's I don't think we need comma here

reworded without --GA

Text

(the Dies Irae, only its part Pie Jesu. The bracket does not seem to end.

good catch ;) --GA

but changed substantially the text "but substantially changed"?

yes

Does the whole section have no source?

well, it's what you see when you compare the score to the liturgical Requiem text and see the differences, - Tim will know. I guess we better add some kind of score as a ref. --GA

same question handled better (in more detail) below. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Structure and scoring

No sources at all for this? Citations need not be added everywhere, but if added at the beginning it should ensure verifiability.

see just above --GA

Sorry to intrude. I found this decent source I might share: Mr Chang-Won Park; Professor Douglas J. Davies (28 June 2013). Emotion, Identity and Death: Mortality Across Disciplines. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. pp. 192–. ISBN 978-1-4094-8179-9. [Chapter 14 "De morte transire ad vitam? Emotion and Identity in Nineteenth-Century Requiem Compositions" written by Wolfgang Marx pp. 189-204. In pages 192-194 he talks about the patterns used by the composer. In p. 195 it is explained what they share in common. Triplecaña (talk) 09:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Triplecaña, let us see what we can do with this. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 12:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added it to the bibliography and used it once, rather generally. Unfortunately, I can't see pages 192-193. If there's something specifically sourced on them, Triplecaña, please feel free to name the reference and double it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked closer: it's excellent but in a detail about inner parts in the orchestra. I doubt that I woud include that detail even in a FA. I think it's good to link to it but would hesitate to mention Faurè as a forerunner of minimal music in the text. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the original question: the section is something like a plot section in a book: sourced by the book itself. Perhaps we can use one score and mention the page numbers in that score? (But I don't think that would be done for a book.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good comparison, Gerda. My personal view is that plots of books, operas, plays etc should have detailed citations, but I am heavily outvoted on this point at FAC, PR etc. The prevailing view is that it's OK to describe the plot (and here the score) by reference to what it is, without the need to cite secondary sources. Tim riley talk 19:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think a painting, a book, a score, they speak for themselves, without someone secondary having to repeat that. I am reluctant to give page numbers, though, because people have different editions. I think the headers should suffice to find the place. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that solved it, no? You can look at any score and compare. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Not very sure, but should some more of the technical terms like arpeggios be linked? What is being linked and what not?~~

linked arpeggio, - let us know what else --GA

I guessed Movement and SATB. What else? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I went through this part. The linking trouble is quite minor, and I guess the two links you have suggested should do the job. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 03:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is that fixed then? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I missed striking this out! Done now. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 07:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Versions

~~Source for the intro?~~

The section intro is a précis of what folows, where the citations are to be found. Better there than at the top, I think. Tim riley talk 19:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

having been composed eleven years earlier as a baritone solo Check that numbers equal to or greater than 10 are in digits, though it is not an absolute rule.

I know "greater 12" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No fear! There is absolutely no reason to replace "eleven" with "11" (or ninety with 90 come to that.) I have taken a dozen (twelve) or more articles to FA with numbers greater than nine as words rather than digits. Tim riley talk 19:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no absolute rule here. Just wondered if you missed it. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 03:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Again, what is being linked and what not?~~

again: say what you would need, - Tim and I are probably blind for that ;) --GA

Ah, new to music, almost all terms are new to me! I thought you should know better which terms would be difficult... Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 12:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For Bach works, we link violin, - on the other hand, we should avoid a sea of blue. Where can we meet? You will know what's difficult for you, better than I could guess. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A difficult situation... I will come back to this later, we can work on the other issues. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 12:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see we have linked any uncommon term (and a few common ones, in my opinion - I think we all tend to link far too much, to the extent that the reader can't see the wood for the trees).

Hmm, this section looks alright. I was just confused how you link the terms, I see it now. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 03:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

~~Are there no other views on the composition other than Fauré's?~~

later or Tim --GA

The heading of the section is inappropriate. We could easily dig out critics' comments about the piece, though as the Requiem seems universally popular it would be exceedingly difficult to find hostile criticism of it, and the result would be a rather one-sided section. In my view Fauré's comment should be moved to the History section.

Tim, please just do it, I think we all agree. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Tim riley talk 20:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's better. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 03:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~The second quote is long, would look good in a quote template.~~

yes, done --GA

Selected recordings

~~Does the 2nd para have no source?~~

later or Tim --GA

Added. Tim riley talk 20:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That should be all. Great article! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 17:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC) Update: A bit busy now, I think I will be able to get to this only by the end of this week. Cheers! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 18:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for diligent reading! I followed some of your suggestions, clarified others, need input from Tim for the rest, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: Hi, did you get our pings? Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 12:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be pleased to look in over the next few days. Tim riley talk 13:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley:, @Gerda Arendt: I am afraid we have seen no progress here since a week... Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 06:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought all your outstanding points were dealt with. What is there left you are looking for a response on? Tim riley talk 07:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing more, I guess. I felt you were still at it. I believe this article is ready for promotion. Awesome job! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 07:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Gerda will concur that we are grateful for your careful attention to detail and your collaborative approach to this review. Thank you, Tim riley talk 08:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I loved it, and left a personal dedication on the talk. If you two want to look at more Requiem (two years after a wonderful Wikipedian died), Reger's is up for FAC ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw Wadewitz's page. What a grave loss! But the loving messages at her talk page did prove this saying wrong: "What happens when a Wikipedian dies? He or she just doesn't show up to edit anymore. Does anybody notice? Does anybody really even care?" Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 09:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In her case, even an article was created, and last year, an artice she created was TFA on 8 April. The last shocking death was Dreadstar, - the actor (referred to in a Signpost editorial, 23 April) will probably not get an article, but I created a prize in his memory, Impact. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]