Wikipedia:Featured article review/Witold Lutosławski/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 15:33, 24 October 2007.

Witold Lutosławski[edit]

Notifications: WikiProject Composers, User:Tony1 (significant contributor), User:Antandrus (many useful suggestions during FAC). User:RobertG (major contributor and FAC nominator) is also aware.

I'm nominating this for FAR due to;

1. A violation of criterion 1. c, and that's because none of the information is verified. Many critical statements are made upon his style and how it changed, so this needs sourcing which should come from esteemed critics. LuciferMorgan 08:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please complete your first sentence, "…that's because none of the information." I think the article does not violate criterion 1c ("factually accurate, verifiable against reliable sources"), because I think all the statements are verifiable from the cited references, which are excellent, readily available reference works by respected Lutosławski scholars. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't notice that I hadn't finished the sentence. That's now rectified. As concerns your assertion that the article doesn't violate criterion 1c, that's inaccurate and couldn't be further from the truth. Featured article standards have improved vastly since this was promoted, I'm sorry to say. LuciferMorgan 09:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Couldn't be further from the truth"? Good heavens. Are you implying that I wrote the article without verifying the information? And why are you sorry to say that standards have improved? --RobertG ♬ talk 09:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am stating, not implying, that criterion 1. c. has changed and that the article doesn't meet current requirements. That's all. Considering your reaction towards my FAR nomination suggests you question the truth in what I am saying, feel free to seek other opinions. LuciferMorgan 10:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't react to the FAR nomination, my first post here simply expressed my opinion that the article meets 1c. My "good heavens" reaction above was prompted by your own hyperbolic reaction to that opinion. My opinion remains that by criterion 1c as it is currently constituted, this article is factually accurate. There is a references section setting out the sources, and I think all the facts in the article have been verified.

Why should I seek other opinions? Surely, that's the whole point of FAR? --RobertG ♬ talk 10:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion - one inline cite per paragraph from the relevant books and reference works should be good enough. The content here is excellent, but current norms are for the refs to be more direct. This has to be done with care, though. Reviewers reviewing who have no clue what they're talking about simply causes chaos. Moreschi ^Talk 20:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep as featured~~Comment: it's wonderfully readable, accurate, gives its references, and simply put is the best information on Lutosławski in English on the internet, with the possible exception of the New Grove article, which requires subscription and is written for a specialist audience. In fact in many ways it is superior to the New Grove article. I don't see any problems here. A lot of our best content lacks things like inline cites. If you insist in inline cites, Moreschi's suggestion above is a good one. Antandrus (talk) 02:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Struck "keep" after reading Tony's comment; forgot what page I was on. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs inline citations without doubt. Just like many other FAs out there... perhaps we could ask WP:SPOT for help, they did good job with HoR recently?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 05:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I'd take the opposite view to Piotrus. Spotlight made a right dog's dinner of the referencing there by tag-bombing the article indiscriminately. I really wouldn't want anyone who didn't know about modern classical music touching this. ~~I agree with Moreschi's idea that we only need one citation per paragraph.~~ (Incidentally the claim "He was possibly the most significant Polish composer after Chopin" is a bit controversial. Moniuszko? Szymanowski? Otherwise I can't see much to argue with). --Folantin 07:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paderewski would be an equally good counterexample; I've never heard of Moniusko. But would anyone challenge that Lutosławski is in the short-list of half-a-dozen who might be second to Chopin? Weasel-wording, as here, does have its uses. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey folks, this is the review process, not the FARC, which would only happen it the review were determined not to have addressed the major issues. Please don't declare keep or remove here. Tony 11:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a worthy FA indeed, thanks to RobertG's work. However, the paucity of references is a major problem, I'm afraid. Robert, are you able to address this? Moreschi's suggestion is good. We need preferable two or three (or more) authoritative sources; best not to repeat the same source again and again. Tony 11:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am gratified by the plaudits, but people haven't really given me much to go on here.

"A paucity of references," says Tony, but I think Stucky and Rae are the two standard studies. Stucky is a distinguished composer who is an acknowledged Lutoslawski expert; Rae knows his Poland (he lived and studied there) and sets the context admirably, if his exposition of the music is less thorough. I think adding more references for the sake of it would not enhance the article.

Everyone else seems to think that copious footnotes will make things "better", but I don't follow your logic. Either the article's content is verifiable, or not. If its verifiability continues to be questioned, then I must assume that there are surprising statements in the article that you all think an interested reader would doubt, and not be able to check: but which statements?

To be honest, I don't have the inclination to trawl through Stucky and Rae again (I haven't even checked they're in at the library). The criteria for this FAR make me wonder if its featured article status is quite simply a distraction: I don't see how this process is likely to improve the quality of the article.

As you can probably tell I don't yet understand the point of this FAR, nor what you are all trying to achieve. I'd like to understand… --RobertG ♬ talk 15:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FA requirements change, and FAR picks random FA for review and checks them if they comply with modern FA standards. Today, inline citations are a FA standard. If WL was nominated today at FA, he would fail. It makes only sense to update articles or remove them if they can't satisfy modern standards (for the record, I spend much of the past year updating my old FAs instead of writing new ones...).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I quite agree that defining and upholding standards is important. I fully support the criterion that all featured articles (indeed, all articles) should be factually accurate and verifiable.

Everyone who has contributed here seems au fait with the FA criteria, and yet you all also (except the FAR nominator) seem pretty happy with this article's being featured. It seems to me that Wikipedia would be putting the cart before the horse to then say, "but it doesn't currently satisfy all the standards, therefore de-feature it". Further, what I have read here seems to be saying that no footnotes equals not enough references equals unverifiable.

I'm very sorry that I am unconvinced, and unable to really engage with this process. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article may well be the best article on a composer on Wikipedia; it's the only one I'm aware of to use musical examples to show his innovation, creativity, and notability.Correction: Messiaen is also good in this regard. I'd like to know what statement in the article someone couldn't find the source for within five minutes by checking out the references in a library? It seems pretty obvious that biographical details can be verified in Stucky, Lutosławski and his music, and style in Rae, The Music of Lutosławski. If people want a footnote on every sentence or every phrase, who is going to verify each one? And if no one is, what has been gained? -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I don't think I've ever seen an FA reviewer who's gone down to the library to check up on the references provided in the footnotes, so why should this article be any more or less trustworthy with inline citations? (As far as I can see, the quotations in it are referenced in any case). I think we can certainly trust Robert when he says all the material in this article is in the sources. I don't know much about Lutosławski, but I do know something about Polish history and the historical background in the article checks out fine as far as I'm concerned. I like to see extensive referencing on controversial subjects, but Witold Lutosławski hardly comes into that category. --Folantin 08:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record actually Folantin, I do doubt some of the statements in the article and that's why I brought it to FAR. Simply put, if this was nominated today it would fail and falls far from FA standards. There's too many unverified POV statements in the article. FAC currently passes music articles which are much better than this, so all the people who are voting keep frankly need to read criterion 1c again. I will be returning to this FAR to highlight specific POV statements, something which everyone above seem to have conveniently missed. LuciferMorgan 12:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I assume you'll be checking the citations in the library if they are added to the article. FAC currently passes music articles which are much better than this - I have my doubts. --Folantin 13:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LuciferMorgan, thank you, you talk sense. The questioning of specific statements is what this FAR requires. Question them here please, so we have something to deal with and this FAR can begin. By the way, I would be intrigued to know which recently-featured music articles you consider to be much better? Seriously, I'm genuinely interested, I really would like to read them. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be ridiculous: no one's asking for "copious" referencing, a footnote "on every sentence or phrase"; but there are clearly not enough to provide the kind of verifiability that is required for authoritativeness. I wonder whether you really do work as an academic. Tony 12:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, personal attacks (nice second one in the edit summary), really cute. :) -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 02:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC) [1][2] [3][4] [5] [6] [7][reply]

I didn't need a raft of defensive weblinks showing that you are in fact working as an academic. My remark was rhetorical. Tony 07:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can provide a few inline cites from the (quite extensive, written by Rae) Grove article on Lutosławski, if people wish. That's not perfect, but it may work as a temporary solution to demands for cite-crunching. Moreschi ^Talk 14:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moreschi, thank you very much for offering. I happen, personally, to disapprove of tertiary sources (such as other encyclopedias) for Wikipedia references, and on those grounds I think it might reduce the quality of the article to cite Grove (even though the Grove article is by Rae). Also, I wouldn't advise the citation of individual facts or paragraphs: either the prose will get lost in a morass of superscripts, each individual footnote pointing to the same references, or it might cast doubt on the remaining apparently uncited statements. Also, you might miss the specific POV/unverifiable statements that LuciferMorgan has offered to point out, quite apart from its distract you (us) from the business of building an encyclopedia. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness to Grove, in this case I think it counts as more a secondary source than a tertiary one - Rae is surely going to have used his own research and conclusions for the Grove article, not just synthesized available literature. In any case, I'm only advocating this as a temporary fix - I agree that cites from the relevant books are better, but that will take longer. Moreschi ^Talk 20:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you might miss the specific POV/unverifiable statements that LuciferMorgan has offered to point out, quite apart from its distract you (us) from the business of building an encyclopedia. - Feel free to clarify that last statement RobertG, because I am keen to know what you meant by this. LuciferMorgan 17:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In your previous comment above you offered to point out statements in the article which you perceive to be POV. I am keen for you to do this, please. Otherwise the task Moreschi was offering to do appeared to me to involve trawling through the Lutowlawski article placing footnotes against statements which have not been questioned, and which could easily be verified from the given references. This does not seem to me to be the best way to improve Wikipedia, nor the best use of Moreschi's time, and hence I characterised it as a potential distraction. Once you have told us what the questionable statements are, we can address whether they require footnotes, and that seems to me a much more sensible way forward. I apologise if my meaning was not clear. --RobertG ♬ talk 18:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue where POV is, is within the "Music" section. LuciferMorgan 18:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In his later works Lutosławski evolved a more harmonically mobile, less monumental style, in which less of the music is played with an ad libitum coordination. - This is a critical judgment, and can be attributed to the critic / biographer in question (I'm assuming this is either Stucky or Rae). As we know, critical opinions slightly or marginally differ from critic to critic and each critic places a lesser or more significant emphasis on different aspects. LuciferMorgan 10:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"More harmonically mobile" and "less monumental": the former seems to me unquestionable, the latter less so, but I will have a look through the sources to back them up. That his later works contain "less music played with ad libitum co-ordination" does not strike me as a critical judgement requiring footnotes, however, but a plain statement of unquestionable fact. For example compare his String Quartet, his Livre pour orchestre and his Second Symphony with his later Piano Concerto and Chantefleurs et chantefables. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --RobertG ♬ talk 21:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert: what does harmonically mobile mean? Tony 16:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lutosławski described musical composition as a search for listeners who think and feel the same way he did — he once called it "fishing for souls". WP:CITE requires all quotations to be cited to the source in question. LuciferMorgan 11:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look for a ref (from memory, I think it's quoted in Jacobson). --RobertG ♬ talk 09:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --RobertG ♬ talk 21:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lutosławski himself did not hold the view that such influences had a direct effect on his music, although he acknowledged that they impinged on his creative world to some degree. Since this sentence mentions Lutoslawski's viewpoint, can the publication where his opinion is referenced be sourced? LuciferMorgan 11:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, as I suspected, Rae 1999 (which is where I think this is discussed) is not available to me just now (actually, not until mid-October). Sorry. --RobertG ♬ talk 21:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is rather unfortunate. Should the article get defeatured due to the fact this isn't available, perhaps you could renominate it when the book becomes available to you. LuciferMorgan 14:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; very frustrating that the FA status could hinge on this deficiency. Can this reference, and others, be distilled via another route? Tony 14:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I restate my puzzlement? One view (the one I hold) is that "Lutosławski himself did not hold the view that such influences had a direct effect on his music, although he acknowledged that they impinged on his creative world to some degree" could be trivially verified by anyone with access to the references, and therefore the sentence doesn't need a footnote. I am baffled that you have questioned the statement, but I make no complaint.

When I get access to Rae, perhaps in October, I will possibly add a footnote. Whether it is in the meantime de-featured has become a matter of low importance to me. I have been completely unable to engage with this FAR. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) I was asked for a comment here. Though the majority of FAs that lack inline citations are typically about three years old and in middling shape, we have seen comprehensive, well-written articles that lack them and it's always a dilemma. I take your points Robert, but it always comes back to this: Wikipedia articles are not static. You know the sources and you know this page is accurate at the moment—but then we have to assume that you will always be watching it to ensure it complies with 1c. What if someone comes along and adds info from a new source or their own OR and you're not watching? Readers going through it later won't know what's from what because there were no inline cites to begin (they don't have to be footnotes, incidentally).

But I don't want another drawn out debate on 1c. Mid-October, you say? Then we'll wait until mid-October. We've gone eleven weeks here before, and I really don't mind unless the article is an embarassment to the FA star—this one clearly is not. Marskell 13:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, we can wait till mid-October.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 13:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Permitting this extra time will save a worthy FA. Thank you. Tony 10:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copious footnotes will help an article only if someone watches the article to ensure that none of the following happens:

The footnotes are moved from the statement they support to one they don't.
The meaning of the text is changed or reversed, while the footnote stays.
The footnote itself is vandalized.

I have seen the first two happen often, in good faith. Chill, guys. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone seems quite chill, from where I'm sitting. Marskell 08:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Even though me and RobertG have differing opinions over citations, RobertG was pleasant enough to write a nice message on my talk page. LuciferMorgan 12:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course: RobertG is quite the gentleman. Tony 14:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Its a great article, and we have few enough featured articles on composers. I hope RobertG finds the time to go through the tiresome work of adding footnotes to an already attributed page, because it deserves the star. Ceoil 18:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you thought I'd forgotten you all: I have now assembled the references and will be looking at them again over the next week or two (or three?). I have made a start. On the basis that if a thing is worth doing, it's worth doing well I will probably just reference everything, even though I originally thought that would be unnecessary overkill. --RobertG ♬ talk 05:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Bows deeply*. Marskell 19:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Bows even more deeply with hat flourish (nose touches floor)* Thinks: "what was all that about then?" --RobertG ♬ talk 16:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm done here. Thanks for your patience. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Robert, for a monumental task; this should be retained as an FA. However, you'll hate me for saying that I think it's way over-referenced now. If you feel inclined some time in the future, some of the repeated references (such as within sentences or in successive sentences) could be rationalised. Tony (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately I enjoyed re-reading the references (and I find his music bears much repeated listening). I kept worrying that I'd discover truthiness had crept in to the article: fortunately there wasn't any. And I don't hate you, Tony! I will, perhaps, as you suggest, "rationalise" the refs some time, because I agree with you.

If anyone watching here wants anything else to do, I commend Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tōru Takemitsu to you: please contribute over there. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think 1c is at fault, so congratulations to RobertG for referencing the article. LuciferMorgan 14:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.