Wikipedia:Peer review/William Walton/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

William Walton[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have listed this article for peer review in the hope of getting it up to at least GA standard. I have lately revised and expanded the article, and would be glad of any comments on, e.g, length, proportion, balance between the technical and the intelligible – or anything else, really.

All contributions gratefully received – Tim riley (talk) 08:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: A few initial thoughts, more to come

Lead
  • I'd look for a stronger opening paragraph, emphasising Walton's stature, thus replacing the second sentence with something along the lines of "During a 60-year career he wrote music in several genres and styles, his best-known works being..." (take your choice, but include Belshazzar's Feast)
    • Done. I hope I have not made the rest of the lead repetitious thereby, though. Tim riley (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the purpose of the hidden note. It reads like a personal comment, is unencyclopedic ("Tommy") and not accurate (Franks was Dean of Christchurch, not "master" of Oxford, a post that doesn't exist). Suggest get rid of it.
    • Aargh! This was a hangover from a brief wrestle with my guardian angel and proof-reader user:Ssilvers. I should have blitzed it, and now have. (Ssilver's point was that for a man supposedly "mostly self-educated" in composition Walton spent a lot of time in a musical educational establishment, and I wanted to make the point that Christ Church was by no means a music academy.) Tim riley (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...and his more tranquil later compositions were rated more highly, alongside his earlier energetic compositions." Close repeat of "compositions" - but I'm not sure about the meaning. "More highly" than what? Is it that his tranquil late compositions, together with his earlier energetic stuff, were rated more highly, while his middle period work remained unesteemed? Clarification requested
  • "not large"; well, that depends. Not large compared with the more prolific masters, but much more than, say, Tippett (or Mahler. or Puccini, etc). You do, however, make the point that he had a long career, so the point is valid enough.
    • Given the last words of your comment I think I'll leave it as drawn. Tim riley (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in recent years" is a bit vague. "Since his death" would be a bit more specific.
First successes
  • The critical reactions to Facade of The Observer and the Manchester Guardian are mentioned. Is it possible to name the reviewers? I don't know who was at the Observer then; I imagine the Guardian review would be from Langford or Eric Blom. Not essential, but it would be nice to know, since you mention Dent in connection with The Illustrated London News and Newman of the Sunday Times.
    • The Observer on Façade was initalled by "P.A.S.", which I can't put a name to. The Manchester Guardian piece was unsigned, and, I strongly suspect, run up by a reporter rather than an arts critic – it certainly reads that way. It has Osbert down as "Mr D. Sitwell". Good old Grauniad! The rave review of the Viola Concerto in The Guardian is initialled by E.B., which, again, rang no bells, but seeing your mention of Eric Blom, I suspect it would be justifiable to assume it was he: what say you? Tim riley (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't place P.A.S. either. You can safely assume Blom for the Viola Concerto - at that time he did London reviews while Langford (and later Neville Cardus) did the north snd overseas stuff. Blom may have done the Facade piece, "D. Sitwell"" being a typographer's error, but probably best left anonymous. My personal preference is for, e.g. "The Observer's critic wrote..." rather than "The Observer wrote..." (newspapers don't write themslves) but again, that's up to you. Brianboulton (talk) 08:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the last sentence of the second paragraph, the words "of Facade" are surely superfluous?
    • Not sure I agree, but I've deleted pro tem and without prejudice, as the lawyers say. Tim riley (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4th paragraph: again, "The Manchester Guardian wrote..."

This is looking extremely good. I'll add more later. Brianboulton (talk) 14:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Greatly obliged, and all eager for the treat. Tim riley (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few more comments from BB:-
1930s
  • Should Britten's diary entry have an ellipsis before "lunch" (or a capital L if that's in the diary)?
World War II
  • "starry"? I'd go for a slightly more encyclopedic "distinguished"
  • I think, when used as a noun, "acoustic" has to be "acoustics"
Postwar
  • I don't think you need describe Susana as "young" - you give her dates and her age.
    • Done
  • "barely held the work together" sounds like a critic's comment rather than that of a neutral encyclopedia. Attribution?
    • In fact Sargent got away with it as far as the critics were concerned, but not as far as Walton and the performers were concerned. Reid and Kennedy both record that Sargent clearly did not know the score and gave wrong cues etc at rehearsal and on the first night. I have changed the text to a direct quote. Tim riley (talk) 09:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Last years
  • "eventually abandoned" maybe sounds more appropriate than "later abandoned"?
Music
  • "orgiastic power, coruscating malice, sensuous desolation and extroverted swagger" - me to a T. I think that such descriptive terms need to be in quotes, however.
Recordings
  • I have doubts about the value of this section. Its plethora of blue links and citations make it unattractive to look at and bothersome to read, and I don't think a mere listing of 40-odd recordings adds anything worthwhile to the article. Within a biography of Walton, it is of course necessary that you discuss his music, which you do most adequately. As to recordings, I would suggest give details of the earliest recording of a Walton work, make the general statement that his major works have all been recorded, usually many times, and give a couple of quotes from critics on recent recordings of major works (The Gramophone Good CD & DVD Guide is particularly interesting on the 1995 Hickox recording of Troilus and Cressida)
    • I have redrawn on the lines you suggest. Tim riley (talk) 09:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, this is an excellent composer biography, certainly in the featured class, and I hope that, after the glitches have been ironed out, you will overcome your aversion to the FAC process and send the article there.Brianboulton (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for these suggestions. I shall heed your encouraging words about FAC. Tim riley (talk) 09:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments added by PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A big disclaimer on this review. This is an excellent article which could probably make GA status already. I'm just nit-picking here, so don't think these are giant issues. They're just things which could be improved to make this perfect.

There is just a twinge of OR to the beginning of this article. To give an example, you state that William Walton was more successful as a singer, and then go on to list where he sang. The source backs up the claim of where he sang, but not that he was more successful as a singer. It's not blatant and it's nothing that couldn't be considered true looking at it in context, but if we're going to be perfectionists about this then there need to be sources backing up these claims. Even if some of the later paragraphs I've mentioned are backed up by the source mentioned a few sentences later, consider using the "<ref name=""></ref>" tags, just to add the citation in numerous places. It makes it look tidier and backs up claims which might otherwise be considered spurious.

There need to be more in-line citations in the lead. Especially when you're making claims like 'he had ceased to be regarded as a modernist'. Similar caveats apply to the statements regarding critics.

  • Uncertain on this. My understanding is that the lead should summarise what follows, and should not normally have a lot of references in it. Tim riley (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph beginning; 'Walton, who was laregly self-taught', also needs more in-line citations.

The sentence ending in "father had spent the money for the fare in a local public house" is both hilarious and desperately needs a citation.

There's no need to say that he's sometimes called the youngest undergraduate since Henry VIII. Simply mention that he was amongst the youngest. It's tidier.

  • True, but my reason for mentioning it is twofold: first because it is (me judice) interesting and secondly, and more importantly to scotch a false statement that still pops up occasionally. I think I'd prefer to leave it. Tim riley (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe give some context to the names mentioned. I know they're linked but when you read the sentence: "Alban Berg heard the performance and was impressed enough to take Walton to meet Arnold Schoenberg" - it might be a little confusing to some. Even putting them in context of where they were historically then (e.g. Arnold Schoenberg, who had just completed xyz) might help clear things up for readers coming in with no outside knowledge.

The sentence: "In 1923, in collaboration with Edith Sitwell, Walton had his first great success, though at first it was a succès de scandale" - either needs a citation or to have the 'opinion' removed (again, in context, it seems perfectly fine, this is just nitpicking)

"In the 1930s, Walton's relationship with the Sitwells became less close. He had love affairs and new friendships that drew him out of their orbit." - Citation or death (source 57 may be good here!)

(sp) He underwent successful surgery, not successfully surgery

  • Redrawn - thank you. Tim riley (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is all most helpful and I am greatly indebted – many thanks. Tim riley (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Magicpiano[edit]

Since I reviewed this article a few years ago, Tim asked me to look at it. All I have to say is "well done!" It has a good balance of biographic detail, musicology, and commentary, which was sadly lacking back then. As someone commented above, this would probably sail through a GA review. I didn't look at the image provenance and licensing; that should be done if you consider sending it to FAC. (I defer any detailed commentary on prose to those who are better at it than I am; I didn't spot anything glaring.) Magic♪piano 20:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/William_Walton/archive1&oldid=612810860"