Talk:André Messager/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Smerus (talk) 12:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time I have undertaken a GA review so I will be grateful for any advice, support, brickbats etc. I am just giving the article a first trawl now.--Smerus (talk) 12:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK: To start with the article seems to me to be generally GA-esque. It is well-sourced, covers many (if not quite all - I will comment on this later) areas of the topic, is NPOV, has not been the subject of edit-wars (an edit war on Messager would indeed signal intensive intellectual passion amongst WP editors), and is extensively referenced from reliable sources.

I've come up with a minor stumbling block at the start - the two sets of composite images provided by User:Tim riley, whilst they seem to me efficient instruments, present some problems in verifying image use policy; athough they are stated to be compiled from WikiCommons free licence originals, aren't we supposed to check those orginals to make absolutely sure they are kosher? I only ask because I want to know.

I did so a little while ago, and found that the picture of Chabrier I originally used was the only one not satisfactorily accounted for. The images of the other three composers and the four leading ladies were certainly published early enough to qualify as Public Domain. (I imagine that the first image of Chabrier did too, but it wasn't possible to demonstrate that, so I have replaced it with the painting by Manet, who died in 1883, so is safely out of copyright.) Tim riley (talk) 08:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I have a hiccup with the end of the first paragraph - 'international sensations'? This is not substantiated by the text (although it may well be true for all I know) - some rewording here would be best I think. The article also mentions Savoy Opera in the lead, but only talks about the Savoy Theatre in the text. As the WP article on 'Savoy Opera' defines it as an operatic style, not exclusive to the Savoy Theatre, this might best be clarified.

I addressed this last comment and will clarify further in the text below. However, if you look more closely at the Savoy opera article, you will see that it defines Savoy opera as a specific group of operas that are listed in the article as much as a style. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More anon. --Smerus (talk) 13:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Early Years

1st para.3 consecutive sentences all have the same ref. Perhaps elide into two sentences, e.g. 'After a bank crash brought ruin' etc., and just have one ref. Penultimate sentence -suggest 'Niedermeyer's school' rather than 'the Niedermeyer'.
- Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Last para - the 'Ring' quadrilles are skittish, (and fun to play), but why announce Grove so portentously before this, rather than just using it in the citation? (I see on checking up that the same comment applies to the Fauré article).
- Done. I agree with this comment. I leave Fauré to Tim. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've imported Brian boulton's pithy rewording from the Fauré PR. Tim riley (talk) 09:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fin de siècle

Pélleas et Mélisande links to the play not the opera - I haven't checked all links yet so there may be other slips like this.
- Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is the article missing a trick re Mary Gardner? She premiered Melisande under Messager's baton - but she doesn't get mentioned till the next section , Twentieth century. Perhaps slip the whole para about Pélleas to this later section - it was after all in 1902 - and clarify the Garden relationship timings a bit.
- I'll leave this one for Tim. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The performers whose photographs I have used so far are four who performed in Messager's own works, but as Garden was associated with Messager both on and stage, so to speak, we could certainly justify her inclusion. I have added her. (The image satisfies copyright criteria.) Tim riley (talk) 08:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A general point about Messager's music. The only section which starts to deal with Messager's actual music (as opposed to an excellent chronology of his output) is the Wagstaff quote which is buried on 'Honours, Awards and Reputation'. I rather feel this inhibits the GA-status of the article (perhaps the only factor which really does). It is after all interesting that Messager had a high reputation for conducting Debussy and Wagner but that (as far as I can understand from the article) he did not avail himself of any of their innovations in harmony, structure or orchestration. The other comments show him as relentlessly 'middle-of-the-road'. Some wider consideration of this situation in a section devoted to specifically to Messager's music might be helpful if possible.

It is indeed noticeable that as a conductor and director Messager was very go-ahead but did not draw on Wagner, Debussy et al for his own compositional style. I suppose the reason is simply one of genre. Ballets (until Stravinsky) and operettas were not seen as vehicles for the avant garde. Messager's own style certainly changed considerably over the years, from the very nineteenth-century operette, to 20th C musical comedy, as mentioned in the quote from Wagstaff/Février. I have moved the music section up to a slot of its own, and expanded it. Tim riley (talk) 08:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recordings. I am personally sceptical of paragraphs like 'Singers who have recorded individual numbers...' This is just a list of names - why these in particular out of many hundreds possible? What - if anything - is special about any of these recordings? What - if anything - do they tell us about Messager and/or his music? If nothing, then why the list in this article? Or am I just being a grouch?

I like the idea of noting some singers whose recordings of Messager's songs achieved particular popularity. Perhaps Tim could trim the list a bit and perhaps say a word or two about the popularity of these recordings or note if the recording was in some other way of note? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point in mentioning these few names is to give a representative sample, in particular showing that each generation has had singers who performed Messager's works. I think simply saying "Each generation has had singers who performed Messager's works", without mentioning a few is rather lame. Tim riley (talk) 08:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More maybe after I have slept on this.--Smerus (talk) 18:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notes. Many of the sources (e.g. Fournier) are mentioned only in the citations themselves. The best practice is to place all the sources in the sources section and have the citations refer to them by author , date and page where appropriate.--Smerus (talk) 06:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If I understand this comment, I disagree with it. I believe that WP practice at FA is to place only the books in the sources section and to leave the news, journal and web references only in the in-line footnotes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I stand corrected on my point as I made it; however there are still a number of books in the notes which on this basis should go into 'sources'.--Smerus (talk) 08:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Now fixed. I have had to blitz a couple of good (and no doubt true) points added by a previous editor which unfortunately lack full referencing. - Tim riley (talk) 09:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these excellent points; I am much encouraged thereby. I am in the heart of the countryside until next weekend, with very limited internet access: I am looking forward to addressing all your points properly on Sat or Sun next. - Tim riley (talk) 10:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK I will go on hold till I hear further from you. And when I do it might take me a while to comment further as I am more or less hors de combat from 1st-12th October. Apart from the trivial cleanups etc. it seems to me mainly the point about his music which would be the clincher for GA. --Smerus (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Smerus. I have been working on this article for a few years, although Tim's recent work on it has transformed it into a far better article. I have addressed your simpler points above, but leave the difficult ones for Tim :-) Tim, please note that there are still a few hidden questions in the text. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC) All but one now dealt with and removed. Tim riley (talk) 09:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your help and comments.--Smerus (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another point which has some bearing on both the matters of musical style and recordings. The article has no sound clips, which if available would be a big plus. I notice for example that on YouTube there is at least one example of an out of copyright recording (although this particular example whilst quite cute may, admittedly, not be especially of interest for the article). I have zero experience in this field myself but perhaps help might be summoned in this matter.--Smerus (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smerus, can you help us (or recommend someone who can help) create a sound file if we can come up with an MP3? Neither Tim nor myself is skilled with the Wikicode necessary to upload one in the right format (OGG?). I think Tim can probably make an MP3 with better sound quality than the YouTube video.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh,I don't have clue when it comesto this technical sort of thing - is there a WP helpdesk for sound files?--Smerus (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see there is this......--Smerus (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and I just downloaded this free mp3-oggconverter programme which seems to work if you want to try it....--Smerus (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely an optional extra, not only at GA but at FA. One can get into frightful copyright complications unless one is an expert (things seemingly out of copyright turn out not to be etc), and I'll leave this to those who are technically inclined. Tim riley (talk) 08:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another point which has occured to me (you can see I am new to this sort of thing) - this time about pictures. I don't see that the pic of the memorial plate at his birthplace adds anything useful - especially as there is a pic of the birthplace itself. And why not add a pic of Mary Garden? since she seems to have played a larger role in M's life than the other leading ladies shown.--Smerus (talk) 08:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about Mary. There are plenty of images of her, but I'll leave it to Tim as to how to fit it into that crowded part of the article. Perhaps we don't need the image of the opera house. As for the plaque, I think is is very nice-looking, while the birthplace itself, IMO, is utterly uninteresting. Do you feel strongly about deleting it? There is plenty of room for images near the bottom of the article where the plaque image is, currently. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, this could develop into a powerfully sterile discussion :-} - which is more nugatory (or more Messageresque), a photo of a plaque that is just like any other plaque but bears his name, or one of a house which is admittingly uninteresting per se but has the mystic quality of his having been born there? Perhaps Tim could make a composite of the two, as with the quatrefoils of people. I won't lose any sleep over it anyway - how much easier I am finding it carping at other people's efforts than writing articles myself! I am content, on this point, to go with any way that Tim or other editors feel. appropriate.--Smerus (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Garden added. ROH and plaque deleted. Tim riley (talk) 08:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drum-roll

OK then - here we go................ Firstly may I thank Tim and Ssilvers for their contributions and patience with me as I try to get the hang of GA reviewing.

Secondly may I say that I have enjoyed reading the article and nosing around some of the references. I think all I knew before of Messager was the Bayreuth quadrilles and the last act of Veronique which I heard at the Proms 1000 years ago. He seems a genial character and I knew nothing of his very important role as a conductor, so the article will certainly make me search out more about the man and his music. Which I suppose is one of the things WP should be about.

Assessment

So here is my GA review (see WP:WIAGA for criteria)

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Well referenced

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Well referenced

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Seem fine

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Well illustrated.Might be nice to have some sound clips, but I appreciate that copyright here can be a mine-field - and anyway this is not a criterion at GA level.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

So that makes it a clear GA; congratulations. And I will be interested to see the article's further progress - who forbids it?--Smerus (talk) 14:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]