Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji/archive1

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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 18 December 2020 [1].

---

Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji

Nominator(s): Toccata quarta (talk) 11:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

This article is about Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji, an English composer, music critic, pianist and writer who is perhaps best known as the author of piano epics lasting anywhere between two and nine hours, and for having gone into self-imposed obscurity for some four decades. Sorabji's life and music have long been shrouded in myth, but this situation has improved considerably in recent years. The article draws on the recent scholarly writings that have addressed the myths, misconceptions and sensationalism that pervade much of the non-scholarly discourse on Sorabji, and presents a more thorough, objective portrait of him as a person and artist. The entry is coming fresh off a peer review and I look forward to this FAC (my first one in my nearly ten years on Wikipedia). Whatever its outcome, I believe the text presents one of the most fascinating and colorful biographies and creative legacies, musical or other, of the 20th century, and I hope reviewers derive at least some enjoyment from it. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by Ajpolino

Hi Toccata quarta, I've no particular knowledge of Sorabji, or the finer points of music, so I'll be reviewing the prose from the perspective of a non-expert who stumbled upon the page. Making notes as I read:

• Lead - "modest trust fund that freed him from the need to work" - almost sounds like an oxymoron. Do we need the word "modest" here?

  Removed. While it may be seen here, for example, I agree that it can sound like an oxymoron and details on his finances are presented elsewhere in the article. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Biography - "Sorabji was their only child and they had married on 18 February 1892" - I had to read this twice to understand it, perhaps because it's chronologically backwards. Maybe flip the order of the two facts in the sentence?

  Fixed. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Biography - "...took music lessons in piano, organ and harmony..." - does "harmony" have a specialized meaning here, or does it just mean harmony? Seemed odd to read [instrument], [instrument] and harmony.

  The study of harmony can encompass things like the emancipation of the dissonance and functional harmony. Usually it's a general statement, like "he studied music (theory)", though music theory is broader in scope and includes the study of harmony. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

  Sounds like it's fine as is. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding your meaning. Ajpolino (talk) 07:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Biography - note 3: "identified with Southern cultures and his Persian heritage and he visited Italy at least eight times...". "Southern cultures" hits my American ear as "the culture of the American South" (indeed Southern culture redirects to Culture of the Southern United States). Is Southern European cultures meant? If so, the added word would be a nice clarifier.

  Fixed. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Biography - "The performance lasted 90 minutes—twice as long as it should have." Do we know why? Did the pianist play slowly, add material, something else?

  The sources do not offer anything conclusive on this, but I have added a note summarizing some of the performance's alleged deficits. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

  The note looks great! Ajpolino (talk) 07:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Biography - "...and his activity as music critic peaked." my brain expected an "a" between "as" and "music".

  Fixed. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Biography - same comment as for the lead "modest trust fund". Is it modest if it frees one from the need to work?

  Fixed. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Biography - "Sorabji's father was affected by the fall of the pound and rupee in 1931, stopped supporting the publication of Sorabji's scores..." reads odd. Perhaps "Sorabji's father, affected by the fall..., stopped supporting..."?

  Rewritten as suggested. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Biography - "A process began around 1936 and the bigamous marriage was declared null and void..." - "A process" seems strangely vague. Maybe "Legal proceedings"? Or just rephrase somehow.

  Reworded according to the sources. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Music - "Various religious and occult references appear in Sorabji's music, including: allusions to the tarot; a setting of a Catholic benediction; and sections named after the seven deadly sins." - I'm not sure the semicolons are essential here. Perhaps "...Sorabji's music including allusions... tarot, ...benediction, and ...sins." would do just as well (and be less intimidating to the reader).

  Fixed. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Music - I can't pretend to have completely followed all of the analysis here, but I think some degree of shop talk is appropriate for this kind of article, and the writing is such that I can typically understand the gist of a sentence or paragraph even if I'm not conversant in all of the ideas.
• Music - You have the wikilink interpretative directions targeting Glossary of music terminology. I'm not sure where in the glossary I should be looking. There's no entry for "interpretative directions".

  A page like the following would be ideal. Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not have the article Performance direction (or Interpretive/interpretative direction[s]), so the glossary link is the best we have. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

  Ah, I see. I was looking for a definition of "interpretative directions" in Glossary of music terminology but I suppose instead the glossary is serving as List of possible interpretative directions. For what it's worth, my opinion is if you think Interpretative directions is a decent topic for a standalone article, you could just leave a redlink for some future editor to fill in. If not, a linkless "interpretative directions" isn't so bad. I've never heard the term before but I got the point: they're directions written in the music to help you interpret the composer's will (I think). Ajpolino (talk) 07:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

  I agree that the term is pretty much self-explaining, so I have chosen to remove it for now. I looked around and stumbled on List of musical symbols, which overlaps somewhat with the aforementioned EL, so it might be best to discuss the creation of a new article at WT:CM first. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Otherwise, an excellent article and an engaging read. I read it in one sitting. After seeing your thoughts on the above, I'll be happy to support. Thanks for the read! Ajpolino (talk) 04:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks; I hope the changes I have just made to the article have adequately addressed the issues you listed above. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Great! Moved to support. Thanks again, and I hope you're staying well. Ajpolino (talk) 07:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the vote of support, as well as for your wishes, which I can only echo. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Support from Smerus

I contributed to the peer review. Am happy to support this for FA but I think it may need an image review (an area where I lack any expertise) to make sure they are all in order - e.g. the book jacket illustration looks as if it might be dodgy - @Nikkimaria:? --Smerus (talk) 08:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the endorsement (and, belatedly, for your feedback at PR)! Toccata quarta (talk) 08:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

  Hello Nikkimaria, thank you for the thorough review. I have added alt texts for all the images. A few of the cases appear to be covered by Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images#Captions and nearby text, but let me know if this is not the case. I think my English is decent, but it is not my first language and I probably lack the vocabulary for talking about clothing and describing people's appearances or postures. Still, I hope the alt texts are reasonable. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

  Since the subject here is the person and not his clothing, I wouldn't worry too much about describing that. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

  OK; I have shortened the alt texts which contained overly detailed descriptions of that. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

  Before we continue, I would just like to mention that I think all the images (with one exception, which I'll get to) should be fine. It appears the cropped ones might be causing some confusion, perhaps because my knowledge of how to tag those is flawed. Two of the cropped images were cropped again on 25 November by Buidhe (see [2] and [3]), which may have impacted the information displayed for them, though the diffs suggest no such thing. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• File:Kaikhosru_Shapurji_Sorabji,_circa_1950_(cropped).png: don't see that licensing at the given source - where is it coming from? Ditto File:Kaikhosru_Shapurji_Sorabji_in_1945_(b)_(cropped).jpg

  I don't know if the information is not displaying properly in the cropped versions, but File:Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji, circa 1950.png and File:Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji in 1945 (b).jpg mention that OTRS volunteers have reviewed the communication containing the permissions and the works have been released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• File:Madeline_Matilda_Worthy_(cropped).jpg: what does the author of the source say about the provenance of this work?

  The image comes from Sean Vaughn Owen's Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji: An Oral Biography. It was taken by John Chancellor (d. 1916). Toccata quarta (talk) 10:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

  Right, but I'm wondering what Owen might say about where he got the image from. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

  This is not mentioned in the text, but given where he did his research and who he was in contact with, I'm about 99% certain it comes from the Sorabji Archive. As an example, this photograph on Owen's Facebook page dedicated to Sorabji mentions the Sorabji Archive as the source. Also, Owen's biography of Sorabji is hosted on the Sorabji Archive's website, for what that may or may not be worth in terms of copyright status. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• File:Shapurji_Sorabji_(1863-1932)_(cropped).jpg: where was this first published?

  This photograph was first published in April 1905 by The Textile Mercury. As far as the three photographs following the lead are concerned, I let myself be guided by the information I received at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2020/September#Is this photo PD?. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• File:Kaikhosru_Shapurji_Sorabji_(young)_(cropped).jpg: don't see an author credit at given source - what else is known about this image?

  File:Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji (young).jpg mentions that the author is William Henry Grove, who died in 1906. The photo was taken in Westminster by the studio of Window & Grove, with Frederick Richard Window having died in 1875. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• File:K_k_sorabji_p_symphony_6.png: what qualifies the uploader to release this work under a free license? Ditto File:Sorabji,_Organ_Symphony_No._3_manuscript,_page_124_(cropped).jpg, File:Mi_Contra_Fa_by_Kaikhosru_Shapurji_Sorabji.jpg

  As far as File:K k sorabji p symphony_6.png is concerned, I'm pretty sure this upload is a copyright violation. No permission was provided to OTRS/Wikimedia and Sorabji's music is still under copyright. The content of this excerpt is lifted from the Powell/Abercrombie edition (which itself is subject to copyright), which poses another problem. I already have a replacement, which contains another excerpt from the same piece, in place (File:Sorabji, Piano Symphony No. 6 manuscript, page 1.png). Let me know if this upload looks OK copyright-wise. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

  Concerning File:K k sorabji p symphony_6.png, I have removed this image from the article and replaced it with File:Sorabji, Piano Symphony No. 6 manuscript, page 1.png. I don't know if the former can be salvaged or justified elsewhere on Wikipedia as a "fair use" image, but it's borrowing from a copyrighted edition without giving any credit and its quality is low compared to the other typeset score excerpts included in the article. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

  As for File:Sorabji, Organ Symphony No. 3 manuscript, page 124 (cropped).jpg, the original file (File:Sorabji, Organ Symphony No. 3 manuscript, page 124.jpg mentions that the OTRS team have received permission via email. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

  Concerning File:Mi_Contra_Fa_by_Kaikhosru_Shapurji_Sorabji.jpg, this file was uploaded by Sorabji scholar Sean Vaughan Owen (in whose oral biography of the composer several photographs are reproduced). The publisher (Porcupine Press [London]) went out of business several decades ago and the edition has been out of print for many years. The book makes mention of "Decorations reproduced from woodcuts in William Caslon's type book, 1793", which, according to what Mr. Owen told me in an email, refers to the illustrations of the cover. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• File:Ferruccio_Busoni.jpg: source link is dead; who is the author and when/where was this first published?

  File:Ferruccio Busoni.jpg mentions that it was published in the US before 1925. I "borrowed" this image from the Busoni article and, while I know this is a WP:OSE argument, at least it is a GA and the reviewed version (which was vetted in 2016 by Tim riley) contained this image. Still, I will investigate and try to find out more on the publication history of the photograph. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

  Nikkimaria: I could not find additional details for this image (despite checking online sources in Italian and German), so I have replaced it with one for which details are provided at Commons. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

  File:FerruccioBusoni1913.jpg needs an author date of death, and when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

  The photograph was taken at the Varischi & Artico portrait studio. Arturo Varischi died in 1923 and Giovanni Artico died in 1930. The Commons page suggests it was first published in 1913, but I have not managed to find any confirmation for this. I have left a message at the uploader's talk page on Commons. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

  The uploader has just responded to my message, saying, "I don't know if this has been published previously, but this scan was published in 2015 by the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin as public domain, where it is part of the Busoni bequest." Toccata quarta (talk) 09:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

  Okay, but we still need to nail down US status - if we can't confirm a pre-1925 publication the current tagging cannot be used. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

  I'm struggling to find proof that it was published in the US before 1925, at least relying solely on online sources. Would File:Ferruccio Busoni, ca 1895.jpg work? The tagging for this image suggests there are no copyright issues involved. If that does not help either, I will probably switch to a different composer (e.g. File:Claude Debussy atelier Nadar.jpg appears to be unencumbered by US-related copyright restrictions). Toccata quarta (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

  Yep, that Busoni alternate would work. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• File:Charles-Valentin_Alkan.png: needs a US PD tag, and it is quite possible for someone to have taken a photo in 1888 and survived past 100 years ago. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

  File:Alkan signature.png says this image is taken from a portrait from c. 1835 by Édouard Dubufe, who died in 1883, so it should be PD. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria: apologies for disturbing, but I just wanted to ask about the resolution of the image review for this nomination. Several points were left open here and it would be good to know what issues, if any, need to be addressed. Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Nikkimaria: Apologies if I am losing track, does that wrap up the image review? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Once the Busonis are swapped. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for this; I have just made the swap. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gerda

I took part in the peer review, and liked the exchange. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to discuss two minor points, being happy with the detailed article, and ready to support already: the lead and the TOC.

In the lead, I'd mention the lifelong tendency to seclusion in the very first paragraph, a summary, and begin the second with his birth and parents. Compare other composers such as Frédéric Chopin and Percy Grainger.

I am happy that "Ban" left the TOC since the peer review, but find "Ups and Downs" and "Admirers" not a perfect replacement. How about a level 3 header "Seclusion", or something else to describe the full long period of withdrawing from the public, with level 4 subheaders? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gerda, many thanks for the support. I quite like your suggestions above; I have incorporated these into the article and hope they are to your liking. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support from Aza24

Will continue with the music section from where I left off at PR later today. Aza24 (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• I suppose I have an odd definition of "later today" :) – was happily listening to Gulistān while reading, comments below:

  Can't argue with that pick! :-) Toccata quarta (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• a 1914 piano transcription – surely?

  Fixed. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• "which are common in" – perhaps something like "which are staples of..." or "which are descended from..." would be better? "Common" just seems ambiguous to me

  Changed. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• Are things like "have often been seen" and "what has been described as" – coming from a source saying something like "this is often seen" or are these the opinions of the scholars? If the latter, I think naming the scholars would make more sense, not sure if I'm explaining this well

  Powell (who is used as a source there) writes, "It is considered by many familiar with Sorabji's music..." Toccata quarta (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• I'm assuming by traditional methods you're referring to the actual development of the fugue (which you explain afterwards), but this sentence alone Sorabji's fugues usually follow traditional methods and are the most atonal and least polyrhythmic of his works almost sounds contradictory, as atonality and polyrhythms are not "traditional" – perhaps rephrase to something like "traditional methods of development"?

  Done. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• "is considered by some to be his greatest work" – just checking – is Roberage saying some consider it his great work or that he himself does? If the latter, it would be better to spell out his name in the text

  Roberge writes, "In April, 1949, he completed what is considered by some to be his greatest work..." Toccata quarta (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• I ache for an example when reading Sorabji rarely intended for his works to be programmatic; although some of them have been described as such!

  I have added two examples and some details. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• While it may be a little odd, I would suggest linking Offenbach's article when mentioning Barcarola di Offenbach – only because you and I will see that differently than people who don't know who Offenbach is; the same could be said with Machiavellian in the book title

  Solved by referring to the piece by its abbreviated title. I contemplated putting a comment in brackets behind the shortened title (as links should not appear in quotations or titles), but The Tales of Hoffmann does not really establish a clear link to the Mediterranean (besides the setting of one act in Venice), which may confuse readers. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• I had to look up what "ebb" meant – can we link to Ebb and flow?

  Link to Wiktionary added. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• I'm unsure about this but when I got to the his largest works call for stamina and skills beyond the reach of most performers line I had kind of been waiting for it – as I know Sorabji has a reputation for having written extremely difficult music to play. I wonder if something along these lines could be briefly mentioned in the lead?

  Added. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• off the cuff may warrant a wiktionary link – at least in my mind

  Added. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• "According to early accounts" seems a little ambiguous, are you meaning earlier biographers, the earlier accounts of people who knew him?

  Clarified. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• afaik pipe links (like the one for Paul Sacher Stiftung are discouraged) I would stick to an ill link (Paul Sacher Stiftung

  Fixed. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• (Not an issue) Woah, Ullen's suggests that Sorabji's 100 Transcendental Studies (1940–44) can be seen as presaging the piano music of Ligeti, Michael Finnissy and Brian Ferneyhough is exactly what I was thinking...!
• Great stuff here, that's all I have

  Many thanks for this! Toccata quarta (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

  A very impressive article. Happy to support. Aza24 (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

  That's gratifying to hear! Many thanks! Toccata quarta (talk) 06:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Source review – Pass

As is your first FAC I'll have to do some spotchecks below as well Aza24 (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Refs

• Would you mind if I submitted a request to get archive links for the online refs? While of course not required, I figure if we can, we may as well

  You mean "In case they go offline one day"? No objection from my side, assuming such a request isn't considered a big favor. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

  Yeah it shouldn't be a big deal, since the article is so long I've had to submit a bot request. Although I'm not sure if it'll work correctly since you have to manually input that you want it to archive non-dead links (I'm not sure if the bot will do this by default) but no big deal

• Surely the Washington post should be included somewhere for ref 348?

  Fixed. That was a surprising omission on my part... Toccata quarta (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• "Anon. (n.d.)." is a little odd for ref 33. If it was a news article without a listed author and date it may make more sense, but as a random web page it seems unnecessary

  Fixed all such cases. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• p./pp.s look good
• Seems to be all sources of reasonable reliability here

  Good to know! Toccata quarta (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Sources

• Would be nice to get more identifiers for some of these refs, Abrahams has an OCLC at world cat

  I have added OCLC numbers and further details for all the ones for which I could find such information. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• The Anon. (1930) is listed as by Sorabji on JSTOR. It also has a different volume number there. Would recommend adding the JSTOR=916600 or doi=10.2307/916600 – or both :) – to the ref

  Fixed all these issues. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• OCLC for McMenamin and one for Owen

  Done. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• Titles should be in title case, even if in all caps originally (e.g. FEATURE REVIEW)

  Fixed. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• Last two Ullen refs are confusing me, they say "In Derus, Kenneth; Ullén, Fredrik (2004)" but don't give what the title of the publication they're "in" is – since the way it's formatting currently implies "Transcendental Studies" is the chapter. Also please an identifier of some kind (ISBN, doi, ISSn); if it's a book you can look it up on World cat for an OCLC

  These relate to Derus, Kenneth; Ullén, Fredrik (2004) and Derus, Kenneth (2009); Ullén, Fredrik (2010), multi-author items that appear earlier in the sources (right after Bechert) and have ASIN identifiers. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

  Ah I see, I would say that for ease of access you may want to move these under their coresponding items with a "**" indentation – but I'll leave that up to you

  I tried this possibility but it didn't quite appeal to me, and I can imagine readers looking for the source would expect Ullén to appear near the end of the alphabetical listing. It's probably not a major issue either way, since there are only two Ullén references in the article and it's one of the less prominent sources. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• Reliability looks good

  Thanks. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks for addressing the issues thus far, will get to the spot checks this weekend at some point. Aza24 (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

  No problem! Incidentally, as far as the sources used in the article are concerned, most of the major ones can be accessed free of charge (and legally) on the internet: Abrahams can be viewed here, Roberge's book can be downloaded from the following page, Owen's oral biography is available here, etc. The only major source that does not exist in this form is Rapoport, but you can at least get page previews and check selected pages of his Sorabji book at Google Books. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Spotchecks – Pass

Soon to do Aza24 (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• Roberage 2020: 120, 138, 90b, 337, 215, 250, 41, 9 - good
• Roberage 2020: 90a not seeing "and destroy his extant manuscripts" or "which comprises 1,001 pages of orchestral score"
  • For the destruction of scores, the relevant statement from Sorabji is, "All I have written since June is a matter of less than two dozen pages and it's quite on the cards that not more than that will be in existence by this time next year!" For the page count, I have just added a ref. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
• McMenamin 16 is good
• more soon
• Owen: 127, 257, 73, 241 – good
• random: 238, 365 - good
• 201, I only see 5 themes at most?
  • As the entry for Third Organ Symphony (1949-53; 305 pp.) in the source mentions, the work has one fugue and six fugal themes. Opus clavicembalisticum and 100 Transcendental Studies have more themes, but these are spread across several independent fugal movements. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Once that final comment above is addressed that should do it; I have no doubts over close paraphrasing or improper citations Aza24 (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Awesome! Toccata quarta (talk) 06:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Great, thank you so much for your efforts with this article. Pass for source review & spotchecks Aza24 (talk) 05:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Aza24: You are welcome, and many thanks for this! (And, if I may take the opportunity to say so, congratulations on bringing Portrait of a Musician to FA status.) Toccata quarta (talk) 06:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia Support

All of my concerns are resolved. (Putting this comment at the top to avoid a collapse template per the template limit problem.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I engaged at the peer review, so may not have much to add on the prose. Starting my section (not a musician).

• The following MOS items all check out: consistent date formats, no faulty dashes/hyphens, no image caption punctuation issues, no sandwiching of images, no logical punctuation issues that I can detect (without having access to sources), good use of NBSPs, and ps and pps in order within the limits of my eyesight. No HarvRef errors. No citation overkill. External links are appropriate. One WP:WAW adjustment made.

  Thank you. Concerning WAW, I think you meant MOS:WAW. I saw WP:WAW in your edit summary and clicked on it before checking the diff, so I was horrified to contemplate that I might have screwed up in that area. :-) Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

  Typical me, sorry :) Will look in later when not iPad typing, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• There are a couple of duplicate links, which can probably be justified: they can be checked by installing, User:Evad37/duplinks-alt, but are not a concern.

  I think these are the ones that were discussed at the peer review (Consonance and dissonance and Part (music)), articles that cover multiple concepts, so my rationales probably remain the same. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

  • World War I is the most overlinked term on Wikipedia. World War II is also linked, not needed. Everyone knows what it is; no one is going to click on it from this article. For some odd reason, editors feel obliged to link it, not necessary.

    Fixed. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

    All good on the linking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• On WP:WIAFA, crit 2b, is it possible to tighten up or leave off "and other" here: 1.3.1 Ups and downs, musical and other

  Would "Ups and downs in life and music" work? The word "instability" is coming to mind but is a bit POV. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

  That seems preferable to "and other", but as you wish, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you; I have changed the heading to this one. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Unsure why you repeat page ranges in the Sources section, when they are given in the References section, but as long as you are consistent, that is fine.

  I followed the citation styles I was exposed to (in part in these sources), though I suppose an online encyclopedia will probably not insist on the page numbers as much as printed sources. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

  No problem here, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• Doublecheck that all citations are in ascending order, sample: Sorabji did not wish to be seen and there was just one brief shot of him waving to the departing camera crew.[101][100] --> should be 100 followed by 101. The way I check these is to do a ctrl-f on ][ to pull up and scroll through every instance of multiple citations).

  Ha! Now this is awesome! I saw the following edit years ago and checked only the diff, which made me believe that refs with names had to precede those without them. I guess such are the limitations of not checking the outcome of a diff from the point of view of a reader, and though I often rely on the "Preview" function, I assumed ref order could do without that. Of course, the reason for this was that I had been careful with the ordering and repeating of the refs and use of the "name" parameter, so I ended up inferring a non-existent policy/practice from an existing one. :-) Anyway, fixed (and thank you). Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

  I'm sure some clever techie person can teach me a better way to fix these :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• Does the period after Ellis belong? To Dr. Havelock Ellis.—in respectful admiration, homage and gratitude ... it looks odd.

  That is how it is reproduced in Roberge's book. I know the MOS allows for silent typographic emendations, but at the very least, it gives the reader some flavor of the peculiarities of Sorabji's prose (just like some of the images in the article illustrate the difficulties involved in deciphering his manuscripts). Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

  No problem then, but I will add an inline comment so that future (subsequent :) editors won't inquire. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Please take my prose suggestions with the grain of salt (not my strength):

• No overuse of the dreaded however, subsequently, overall, in total, and their ilk.
• I do suggest that some of the 29 uses of also might be redundant and could be reviewed. (See the writing exercises at User:Tony1)

  I have just removed a few that I identified as redundant; the others all appear to establish a (necessary) link to what appears earlier in the text. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

  All good, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• who set up a trust fund that freed him from the need to work ... that freed his son from the need to work ... to avoid ambiguity on "him"?

  Change "him" to "his family". The failure to refer to his wife in this passage might raise some eyebrows and WP:WAW could even be moderately applicable here (though at least there is "that would provide his family with a life income" later in the article). Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

  All set, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• MOS:CURRENT, it's always good to avoid the word "recent" when possible and give specific context to time frames ... but interest in it has grown in recent years --> has grown in the 21st century? has grown since year X? has grown since his death ? something for context

  Changed to "since then" (i.e. since the early 2000s). Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

  Good, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• This is perhaps stylistic, and is not as overdone and unnecessarily cluttered as I've seen elsewhere, but is it really necessary to include the birth to death range on Trew? Thus, from the early 1910s until 1916, Sorabji studied music with the pianist and composer Charles A. Trew (1854–1929). We have a timeframe and context for when he lived already in the sentence, so does the reader really benefit from that? Examine others similar throughout ... I'm not fussed if you want to keep them, because again, they aren't creating as much unnecessary clutter as I've seen in another FAC.

  I have removed several instances of this but kept the years for his parents and Reginald Best (his probable partner). Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

  Grand! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• In this passage:

(1) Thus, from the early 1910s until 1916, Sorabji studied music with the pianist and composer Charles A. Trew (1854–1929). (2) For unknown reasons, Sorabji was not conscripted during World War I, and though he later praised conscientious objectors for their courage, there is no proof he tried to register as one. (3) Around this time, he came to be close to and exchanged ideas with the composers Bernard van Dieren and Cecil Gray, both of whom were also friends with Warlock.

(1) discusses his musical associations, (2) has him not going to war, and (3) comes back to his musical associates. (2) seems out of place, and when reading, I expected (3) to somehow relate to (2), as if they had something to do with conscientious objectors. Not sure how you might fix that ... just odd. Can (2) be placed after (3) ?

Reordered. The documentation is a bit of a mess, but it appears Sorabji had met them by 1920 at the latest. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Good, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• Unclear ...

In connection to this, Sorabji joined the Parsi community

... expat presumably, in England? And one wonders why he wasn't always part of that community, considering his father's ancestry. Maybe a better word than "joined" can be found ... engaged ... grew increasingly part of ... ?

Unfortunately, almost no documents concerning the event or his father's involvement in it survive, but I have added a bit about how Sorabji came join the community. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Good, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• huh ??? In the mid-1920s, he befriended the composer Erik Chisholm ... They first met in April 1930 ???

  The article previously stated, "In the mid-1920s, he began correspondence with and befriended Scottish composer Erik Chisholm", but this was changed by GOCE. It probably sounds odd to us, but I guess it wasn't so unusual in the pre-internet age. (Roberge says, "Besides Philip Heseltine and, later, Frank Holliday and Alistair Hinton, Erik Chisholm was Sorabji's closest friend. As with other such acquaintances, contacts were mostly epistolary.") Anyway, would you like the previous version to be restored (and possibly reworded)? Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

  Something akin to previous better ... no need to feel constrained by GOCE, volunteers like all of us :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

  I have restored some of the earlier version and, much to my surprise, improved the flow of the passage a bit in so doing. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Remove the ambiguity around "he" (lived with his family) again (father or son), also suggest sentence might be split from the previous ? ... but he did not want his son to become a musician and there is little evidence that he lived with his family.

  I raised "this" issue at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2020 September 25, but not much came out of the conversation. The problem is that MOS:SAMESURNAME isn't really equipped to deal with this case ("Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji and his father, Shapurji Sorabji"). Sorabjian literature deals with it by calling the composer Sorabji and his father Shapurji Sorabji, but it would be only a matter of time before someone complains and tries to "correct" the text. References to "family", "wife" and "son" are further complicated by Shapurji Sorabji's three marriages (of which at least one was bigamous). I would prefer to invoke WP:IAR and use "Shapurji Sorabji", but it's not an easy decision to make. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

  see below, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• Here, we are going backwards chronologically to talk about his father, so add "he had returned" ... ? ... After his marriage in 1892, he returned to Bombay ... actually, in this paragraph I am losing track of what is father and what is son, so some tightening would help.

  I tried to avoid ambiguity by assuming that the reader knows Sorabji was active in the field of music, and his father was an industrialist and businessman. Another thing that probably helps is that post-1932 events can be (generally) taken as referring to Sorabji, as his father was no longer alive. I may make further changes depending on your reply to my previous comment. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

  Would this work? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

  A major factor in Sorabji's change of attitude was his financial situation. Sorabji's father had returned to Bombay after his marriage in 1892, where he played an important role in the development of India's engineering and cotton machinery industries. He was musically cultured and financed the publication of 14 of Sorabji's compositions between 1921 and 1931, although there is little evidence that he lived with the family and he did not want his son to become a musician. In October 1914, his father set up the Shapurji Sorabji Trust, a trust fund that would provide his family with a life income that would free them of the need to work.

  Absolutely! I have changed the text according to your suggestion, though I switched "his father set up" to "Sorabji's father set up", as the former could be ambiguous. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Maybe a BrEng thing? ...Sorabji was concerned by the impact copyright laws would have on the spread of his music ... concerned about ?

  [4] suggests this usage is OK in BrE. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

  Good, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• Awkward, don't know how to fix ... Sorabji and Holliday's friendship ended in 1979 owing to a perceived rift between them

  I have replaced "owing to" with "because of", which is more orthodox BrE. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

  Good, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• and was allegedly supposed to go to the Pope upon his death. ... allegedly supposed feels redundant ...

  Would "... [Sorabji] wore a ring that he said had belonged to a Sicilian cardinal and would go to the Pope upon his death" work? This kind of linguistic construction pushes the boundaries of what a non-native speaker like myself can disentangle and check for ambiguities. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, I like that, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

  I have changed the text accordingly and sneaked in "deceased", to avoid ambiguity as to whether Sorabji's or the cardinal's death is being discussed (in fact, the text was also ambiguous before). Toccata quarta (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• At this point, we have already been told earlier that he had a stroke and died so this is repeat info ... Sorabji suffered a mild stroke in June and died later that year; their ashes are buried beside each other --> Sorabji died later that year, and their ashes are buried beside each other.

  Fair enough; I have removed this. Roberge makes the point clearly when he writes, "Best's passing on 29 February 1988 was obviously a blow to Sorabji, who suffered a mild stroke in June." The paragraph quotes Sorabji on how highly he valued Best, so I suppose this is OK. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

  ah, ha ... I see that you are making a connection between his stroke and Best's passing, so perhaps that could be more clear, by bringing in the "obviously a blow". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

  I have added a short comment on Sorabji being impacted by Best's death and restored the passage about the stroke (as I understand your comment as saying that this information can be reintroduced into the text in that case). Toccata quarta (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

That's it from me: I anticipate supporting once these nitpicks are dealt with, and the sourcing/spotcheck review is complete. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

• Many thanks for this and your time. I hope the issues (save for the open points above) have been addressed adequately. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

  I am nitpicking now, so can be considered a Support once the sourcing checks are complete. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you again for your time and the (anticipated) support. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

All good on my end ... please ping me when Aza24 is done with the source review, so I can formally support (or the Coords can consider me a support once the source work is completed satisfactorily). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you so much for this and your valuable help. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.