Wikipedia:Peer review/Mozart family Grand Tour/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mozart family Grand Tour

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is a new article, in the Mozart biography genre, which deals with a period in Mozart's early life which was of seminal importance to his development as a composer. Comments invited on all aspects.

Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Try Halliwell[edit]

Hello BB,

It looks pretty good to me, a quality addition to our Mozart coverage. I have just one comment.

The book by Ruth Halliwell, The Mozart Family, offers a very different view of the financial aspect of the tour than what the article currently says. She thinks that, with massive travel and inn expenses, plus extended periods of profitless idleness during family illnesses, the journeys hardly netted any money at all. Related to this, she describes the episode near the end of the London stay (when the children were incorporated into a dog-and-pony show) more as an act of desperation than a matter of "trying to extract the last penny" from the Londoners.

I doubt that all biographers of Mozart would agree with Halliwell. Leopold had good reasons for concealing big profits if he made them, and perhaps he fooled Halliwell just as he fooled his contemporaries. I am ambivalent myself concerning this question. But the evident care of Halliwell's research (for instance, she cites letters neglected by other biographers) suggests that her views would be worth including.

I should stop here, but there's a related point that I find somewhat gripping, namely whether we 21st century-ers should consider Leopold's behavior to have been ethical. Maynard Solomon, among others, has offered sharply negative views about Leopold's making, then retaining for himself (so it is claimed), a huge fortune off the labors of his chidren. If, as Halliwell thinks, the trips weren't actually profitable, this might be taken as support for the alternative view that Leopold merely wanted to educate his children and show their God-given, miraculous (this is how he felt) talents to the world. The latter is, of course, the side of the story that Halliwell emphasizes.

I know you've said earlier that Halliwell's book is not readily available to you in Britain but this actually puzzles me, since it was published there. Perhaps you have access to an interlibrary loan service?

I hope this is helpful.

Yours very truly, Opus33 (talk) 23:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the above. I will do my best to get hold of Halliwell's book, as there seems to be an important perspective that at least needs to be considered alongside those I have drawn on, mainly Sadie and Zaslaw. I have tried one interlibrary loan without success, but I will try my old college library. Brianboulton (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have managed to consult Halliwell's book, and have used it to incorporate more financial details, including the evidence that the family was, at various times on the tour, very short of money. I have avoided a conclusion that Leopold had made little or no money by the end of the tour, because no one knows about this for sure, either way. As to Solomon, well, I have taken the line, backed up generally by the sources, that while Leopold was clearly interested in making some money, he was equally anxious to show his children to the world for reasons other than money. There is plenty of evidence in the sources that emphasises this duality of purpose. Brianboulton (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(PS) map now included. Brianboulton (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments Fascinating article, althouigh I kept expecting the Mozart family to try their hand at polar exploration ;-). I read it once and it reads very well, but here are a few ideas I had.

  • I think a map would help very much - I know Awadewit made a very nice map for History of a Six Weeks Tour here which might be a useful model. One thing to think about is which places to include (every place mentioned would probably be too busy)
    • Absolutely right, a map would be a great addition. What is more, Awadewit's map is pretty well spot on to my requirements. I see she made the map herself from On-line Map Creation; I'm not as clever as she is, but I will try and create my own. If I get into difficulties I may come crying for help. Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it make sense to add rough times to the headers - month and year? So Paris could be Paris: November 1763 to April 1764
    • I've done this. Personally, I think it makes the headings a bit top-heavy, but I'll wait for a neutral opinion. Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also wonder if it would be helpful to separate the footnotes which are mostly explanatory notes from those which are just cited references.
    • I don't normally do this. My personal view is that having "Notes" and "Footnotes" (as, for example, in Robert of Jumièges}, is a bit cumbersome, and it doesn't seem all that necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is an extra double quote in the caption of the lead image: Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart in 1763, aged seven, at the start of the Grand Tour". He is wearing livery presented by the Empress of Austria the previous winter. I ma guessing the " should not be there at all, but perhaps it is supposed to be "Grand Tour"?
  • Problem sentence - One person who took particular note of the children was The German diplomat Friedrich Melchior von Grimm's journal records Wolfgang's feats in glowing terms: ... Looks like two versions of the sentence got merged?
  • Could the teller of the story be identified in The story is told that she helped Wolfgang when he slipped on the polished floor, and in return received from him a proposal of marriage.[7]? Attribution seems to be desired at FAC.
    • Done my best with this, and fixed the blame on Blom for not revealing the origins of the story. Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Note 1 would it make sense to add that Theophilus and Amadeus both mean the about the same thing in Greek and Latin (loved by God)
  • Is there any way to provide some comparison figure for the various currencies mentioned? Sometimes this is done (half a year's wages), but in other places I am not really sure how much a florin or gold louis or whatever is worth, even in some very rough way.
    • I'll need a bit of time to work on this, there are so many currencies involved. I should, however, be able to come up with an explanatory note that throws some light on this matter. Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have provided more financial information in the Evaluation section, together with a couple of footnotes in the text. These should give a very rough idea of comparative values, but with obsolete currencies, and in times and cultures far removed from our own, it s very difficult to provide meaningful equivalences. Brianboulton (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The images look OK to my non-expert eye. The only potential trouble spot I see would be the plaques - I think in the UK this would be OK as a free image under freedom of panorama, am not sure what French law is. Some NRHP plaque images have been removed, but this is for US copyright reasons. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll wait for the judgement of an image guru (Wherefore art thou, Elcobbola?)Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments much appreciated as usual. Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Always glad to help - ask if you need help with the map. Almost all of my points above are just ideas / suggestions, feel free to ignore them. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awadewit comments What a delightful article! This makes me want to work on a Mozart piano sonata article - my "to do" list just gets longer and longer. Here are my thoughts:

Thank you for the kind words and for the painstaking review. I'll deal with the image queries first.
  • Image:Wolfgang Leopold Nannerl.jpg - What is the original source for this image?
    • By "original source" I take it you mean, was it scanned in from somewhere, or did the uploader take a photoraph, or what? I read the source information as meaning it had been scanned from Solomon's book. This is a commonly reproduced image that appears in nearly all the Mozart biographical books. I have added more precise information (publisher, ISBN) to the book details, but if this doesn't suffice, what should I do? I could always scan in another version of the same image, but that seems a bit pointless.
      • The original source information (before I changed it) makes it pretty clear that is not the case (see this diff). If the Solomon book has the image in color, we don't have a problem, but if the Solomon image is in B&W, we do have a problem. Awadewit (talk) 02:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll check this out - don't have a Solomon with me, will need a library copy. Brianboulton (talk) 12:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The original is Musee de la Ville de Paris, Musee Carnavalet, Paris [1]. They, or one of the French govt databases might have a better version than this. Johnbod (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you, Johnbod. I have scanned and uploaded a better version, which I think sits well on the page. Brianboulton (talk) 10:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Leopold Mozart.jpg - The source link for this image does not take us to the image.
    • The link does take me to the image, admittedly in a rather unsatisfactory way. It takes me to a site called "Vispix", with a prominent image of Leopold to the fore, which I assume is the source. But after a few seconds, the image gets obliterated by a cellphone pop-up! This happened to me repeatedly - did the same thing happen to you? Or did you not reach the site?
      • I must have looked away for a moment while doing the review (gasp!), because all I saw was the horrible pop up. This is ok, I suppose. Awadewit (talk) 02:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:PompadourDrouais.jpg - What is the source for this image (Wikipedia is not a source)?
    • Yeah, I should have spotted that. I don't think it will be possible to find where the image came from. I am tempted to change it - there is another Pompadour image which seems to have more definite source information, but I'll have to go and search for it on Commons. (Image:Pompadour6.jpg actually)
      • The "Louvre" is not a source - was it scanned from a book? Taken from a website? We need something. Try looking around on the web for it. Awadewit (talk) 02:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looking around the web, I found what I think is a better Pompadour portrait, with all source & author detail present, so I've uploaded and used that. Brianboulton (talk) 12:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Johann Christian Bach.jpeg - Thie link for this image (at Commons) does not take us to the image.
    • There seem to be many problems associated with this Gainsborough portrait, apart from the link to the alleged "source". I am thinking of chucking Bach and replacing his image with that of C F Abel, also a Gainsborough portrait but with better source information. Check Image: Abel Gainsborough 1777.jpg. Abel was an important influence on Mozart in London; if I use his image I may need to adjust the text to bring this out more.
  • Image:Willem v (2).jpg - There is no information with which to verify the PD claim.
    • No, and on closer consideration it's a pretty rotten image, too. What about changing it for Image:WilliamV.jpg?
      • New one looks good (of course, it would be best to have the death date of the artist). Awadewit (talk) 02:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Salzburg cathedral frontview.jpg - This image is missing author, date, and source.
    • The metadata shows the photo was taken on 30 December 2005 and uploaded the same day by Matthias Kabel, who claimed it as his own and can reasonably be assumed to be the photographer/author. I have included this information in the image details.
      • OK, a short rest before I tackle the prose queries. Brianboulton (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you think about including clips from the pieces that Mozart played and/or composed on the tour? I think that the multimedia aspect of Wikipedia is one of its greatest strengths.
    • Great idea, if clips of Mozart's tour music are available - I imagine that Symphonies 1 and 4 would be, if nothing else. Trouble is, I've no idea how to go about finding, or including the clips; could you at least help me on my way? Brianboulton (talk) 12:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think Shoemaker's Holiday would know more about that than I would. Or, perhaps, Giggy. Awadewit (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's a good possibility that a couple of clips, being made by Shoemaker's Holiday, will be added to the article shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The eighteenth century is replete with touring wunderkinds. I wonder if it would be worth adding a paragraph on this historical context. The Mozarts were not unique and readers should know that they were part of a cultural phenomenon.
    • I'd need a source for the statement that wunderkinder were common in the 18th C. I'm not an expert - offhand I can think of Chatterton, and Mozart's English violinist friend Thomas Linley (who is mentioned in Sadie's book). But I'd need more than two examples for the paragraph to have any force. Brianboulton (talk) 12:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it is going to take some research. I don't know offhand. However, I did find some interesting material on how Mozart helped shape the image of the child prodigy here. Just putting "prodigy" and "eighteenth century" into Google Books gets you lots more examples, but the key would be to find a source that explains the phenomenon. I'm sorry I can't point you to something more specific on that front. I do think it is important, though. Awadewit (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll do a little work on this, but I am concerned about drifting too far from the main focus of this article. One short paragraph will have to be enough, if I can locate adequate material. There is perhaps other articles to be written on the wunderkind phenomenon, but not I think by me. Brianboulton (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm still considering. I've drafted a very short para, with a citation to the Cambridge History of 19thC Music, but I haven't decided whether to use it - or where to put it if I do. I don't want to create a hostage to fortune, with reviewers asking that more be added, and it may be prudent to simply leave it out. Brianboulton (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I still think that adding this material (in a short paragraph), with more research even (that source is not the best), is essential. Readers need to understand that the Mozarts were not unique. Also, I can suggest some details to cut as well. We don't always have to add at a peer review. :) Awadewit (talk) 06:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, you gave me that source! This issue might be something for discussion at FAC, since you and I may not agree here. I agree it would be useful to demonstrate that there were many child music prodigies around, to give examples, and briefly to indicate Wolfgang's role as exemplar. I have sources for all this, but I am pondering how best to say it, and where to put it. As I say further down, I am not willing to cut material, so I want to keep it brief. Brianboulton (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I gave you something I found in a 5-minute google search! Come on! Besides, that source only discusses the 19C legacy of the Mozarts - that is only part of the story. The point is, the best articles on Wikipedia, like Stonewall Riots, lay out a historical canvas for the reader so that they really understand the topic being discussed. Awadewit (talk) 20:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Actually, the source is quite useful, since its point that Mozart set the benchmark for future prodigies helps explain why the wunderkind phenomenon was less recognised in the 19th & subsequent centuries. True, that's only part of the wunderkind story, but worth including. Brianboulton (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason this tour is called a "Grand Tour"? Do any of your sources relate it to the Grand Tour?
    • Zaslaw and Halliwell have "Grand Tour" chapter headings, Baker calls it the Grand Tour, as does Blom in lower case. Do you think I should cite the term to one or more of these sources? Brianboulton (talk) 12:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think citing it is important. What I meant by the question was whether there was relation between the Mozarts' "Grand Tour" and the cultural Grand Tour undertaken by many aristocrats - did the Mozarts think of themselves as undertaking the Grand Tour in a way? Awadewit (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry I misunderstood you. There's nothing in the sources to indicate that Leopold regarded this as a version of the Grand Tour. He saw it as a way of making money, and of furthering his children's education, but principally, it seems, of showing off his children's talents for the glory of God, the Church and Salzburg. Brianboulton (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm wondering if something about Leopold's teaching of Wolfgang shouldn't be included in the "Infant prodigies" section. Right now, the section sounds as if Wolfgang was born knowing everything, but it is my understanding that he learned a lot from his father.
    • I think it important to maintain that Wolfgang's musical gift was apparently natural, a "gift of God" that took even his father by surprise. Having said that, Leopold should have full credit for his children's general education and for creatinf the musical environment in which their natural gifts could flourish. A setence has been added to this effect. Brianboulton (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been suggested by Mozart student Wolfgang Hildesheimer that - I'm not totally sure what "Mozart student" means - does that mean he actually studied with Mozart himself?
    • "Mozart student" means he studied Mozart, but I admit it sounds as though he might have studied under Mozart (he died in 1991, incidentally). He was a German writer on many subjects, and might be described as an "amateur scholar" of Mozart, since he had no musical training. He did write a significant biography. I see there's a wikipedia article on him, so I've linked, and will change his description to "biographer". Brianboulton (talk) 12:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been suggested by Mozart student Wolfgang Hildesheimer that, at least in the case of Wolfgang, this venture was premature: "Too soon, father dragged son all over Western Europe for years. This continual change of scene would have worn out even a robust child..." - This first quoted sentence sounds strange - are there missing articles? "the father dragged the son"? Could we add them in brackets if they are not in the original?
    • The articles are missing in the original - I've added them in brackets. Brianboulton (talk) 12:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leopold was relying on the professional musical network, and on his more recent social contacts, to obtain inviations from the royal courts. - "his professional musical network"?
  • Practical assistance came from Hagenauer, whose trading connections in the major cities would supply the Mozarts with what, in Jane Glover's words, were "effectively banking facilities". - Perhaps we should explain to readers why banking facilities would be needed at that time?
    • Halliwell gives a lengthy description of these facilities, but I don't want to bore the reader with long explanations of letters of credit, etc, so I'm just adding: "...enabling them to obtain money in the places where they stayed, while waiting for the proceeds from their performances to roll in". Brianboulton (talk) 13:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What were the musical preparations? Did the Mozart children practice extensively? Did they expand their repertoire or did they play what they knew on the tour?
    • According to Blom, before the Grand Tour Wolfgang "perfected himself" on the violin, having apparently learned to play it in one day without tuition. Glover says the children kept in practice playing every day, because of their "delight in music making". Halliwell refers to them having to practice amid a hectic schedule of packing and unpackng as they travelled from place to place. The question is, how much if any of this needs go into the article? During the 10 days of its review the article has grown by nearly 500 words as I have accepted reviewers' suggestions. There's still a possible "wunderkind" para to write. The article is in danger of getting swollen, so I would suggest either leave this bit out altogether, or limit mention to Blom's sentence about violin-playing. Brianboulton (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that adding details about music is important, though. Other details in the article could be sacrifice, such as when the Mozart children were born, the times at which they played on the 15th of October, Hildesheimer's quote about the trip being too early for Wolfgang, etc. Awadewit (talk) 06:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have added a little. There's not a lot more to say on this topic - the childen played together every day because they wanted to, the need for routine forced practice didn't arise. As to the suggestions as to what might be cut, no. I cut out a lot before bringing the article to PR and feel that what is left needs to stay in. Brianboulton (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Think summary style. The general reader is never as interested in the topic as you are yourself. Writing a dissertation, one learns this the hard way. I could go on for hours about 18th-century children's literature, but no one wants to hear it. :) I have to learn to be concise and select only the most interesting and important stuff to say. When I give my job talk, for example, I will have one hour. Brevity and succintness, dude, it is quality worth attaining. Wikipedia does not encourage it, however. Awadewit (talk) 20:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thank you, and I appreciate that your concern is to improve the article, but in the end I must make my own judgments about what to include; these may be different from yours. As I said above, I have cut out a great deal of material already, and I don't want to cut more. As to music preparations, the sources say no more than I have said, and I think the picture is clear to the general reader on this issue. Brianboulton (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wolfgang turned this delay to advantage, by visiting the nearby church at Wasserburg and demonstrating his ability - This sounds as if Wolfgang made the decision, but I highly doubt that.
  • Wolfgang turned this delay to advantage, by visiting the nearby church at Wasserburg and demonstrating his ability, after brief explanation, to play on the organ pedals "as if he had been studying it for months". - I don't understand the "after brief explanation" part.
    • I've reworded the sentence which I thinks makes it clear. Brianboulton (talk)
      • I've deleted a lot from the sentence - it was just too convoluted. If you want to add more, I would suggest two sentences. Awadewit (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The family then moved on to Schwetzingen and the Mannheim court, where the children's performance apparently "amazed" the Electress. - Do we know which electress it was?
    • Of Bavaria - and the Elector too, it seems. Brianboulton (talk) 13:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • (Later) No, sorry, I got that wrong, having been misled by Sadie as to who was Elector of what at the time. But I've sorted it out: Maximilian III Joseph was Elector of Bavaria before whom the Mozarts played at Munich; the Elector and Electress who were "amazed" at Schwetzingen were of Mannheim, which was then a separate duchy, later absorbed into Baden-Wurtemburg. Brianboulton (talk) 14:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can we link the Elector and Electress to the rulers of the moment? Awadewit (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, I've done this. It's all rather complicated; the Elector at Mannheim was the Elector Palatine Karl Theodor, who later succeeded as Elector of Bavaria. But I think I've got them all correctly labelled now, and linked. Brianboulton (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Those German duchies - they are a pain. Awadewit (talk) 19:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • they were apparently given 50 louis d'or (about 550 florins) and a gold snuff-box by the royal entertainments office, in respect of appearances in February 1764, but no more details are available. - What does "in respect of appearances" mean? I was confused.
    • There is no record of them giving a concert at the royal court, but they appeared before and entertained the court in some way, perhaps informally, and were rewarded. I'll change "in respect of appearances" to "presumably as a present for entertaining the royal family privately". I'll also delete "apparently" since there is no doubt about the paayment being made. Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wolfgang Mozart's first published works were printed in Paris: two pairs of sonatas for harpsichord and piano, K.6 and 7, and K.8 and 9. - These are listed as violin sonatas in List of compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and in the articles themselves. I'm confused.
    • My silly mistake. Should be "harspichord and violin". Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "London" section, the article begins to refer to "Wolfgang" as "Mozart" and then switches back to "Wolfgang". I'm wondering if you want to be consistent.
    • I'll check this out. I meant to call him Wolfgang throughout the article until the Evaluation part, at which point I think it's appropriate to call him Mozart. Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've been through. He is now called "Wolfgang" throughout, until the "Musical evaluation" where he is called either Wolfgang or "Mozart", depending on the context. For example, "Wolfgang's career as a symphonist..." sounds wrong. Brianboulton (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three lost symphonies, known in the Köchel catalogue only by their incipits, may also have originated from the London period. - If readers haven't read the footnotes, they won't know what the catalogue is. Also, what are "incipits"? Even I, who know what the catalogue is without the footnote, don't know enough to know that! :)
  • After the party's landing at Calais there was a month's delay at Lille, as first Wolfgang, then Leopold, fell sick. - Do we know what they fell sick with?
    • Wolfgang tonsilitis, Leopold dizzy fits. I've explained in text. Brianboulton (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is some inconsistency in the way that Mozart's compositions are presented. I don't know what the MOS says about this, but the article should at least be consistent.
    • You're right, these are all over the place. The normally accepted form is name of work followed by K. number, e.g. Symphony No. 1 in D major, K. 16. Italics are used only for names like God is our refuge, opera and aria titles and similar. I am going through to standardise all named works in this way. I can't see anything in MOS that says otherwise, but as you say it is important to be consistent. Brianboulton (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the Mozart pieces that do not have articles yet be redlinked?
    • Preferably not. There's too many of them; a rash of redlinks confuses the reader who is not au fait with wikipedia habits Also, I doubt very much whether many of the pieces will ever attain their own article. Brianboulton (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Really? Every Simpsons episode and character gets an article, but not Mozart? What a shame. :) Awadewit (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that insertions made into a quotation should be bracketed [xxx] - they seemed to have parentheses in this article. I tried to fix the ones I was sure of.
  • I have added some links to the article, but more could still be added. I particularly want to encourage you to link musical terms which are obvious to you but will not be obvious to the reader unfamiliar with classical music. Mozart is a high-profile figure, so I think we can assume that readers who do not know what a motet is, for example, will read this article (I linked that one already).
    • Will check this, too.
      • I've added a good many links, to musical terms, places and people. I hope this isn't overdone, now. As indicated earlier, I am not a fan of enthusiastic redlinking, so people not notable enough to have their own wiki article remain in blac print. Brianboulton (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • aria d'affeto or aria d'affetto?
  • Why the "Further reading" section?
    • I think it had a purpose, once, but not any more. I will remove it. Brianboulton (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did some copyediting as I was reading, but you might want to find another person for one more sweep. There are few places where the word wasn't quite right or the phrase didn't quite flow. Nothing big, but having just one more person go over everything might help the FAC go smoother. :)

I hope these comments were helpful and let me just say again how much I enjoyed reading this article. I love Mozart's piano works and this clearly explained his early development as a composer. Awadewit (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AS you see, I haven't finished attending to all your points yet, but I would like to thank you for the care and detail with which you have conducted this review - and your insistence that the issues you raised are properly addressed, not glossed over. This makes an immeasurable difference to the quality of the finished product. Brianboulton (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much - every once in a while I worry that people are going to think I'm the most annoying reviewer on Wikipedia. :) Awadewit (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Mozart_family_Grand_Tour/archive1&oldid=1078795361"