Wikipedia:Peer review/Gabriel Fauré/archive1

Gabriel Fauré

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have listed this article for peer review because having revised and expanded it to more than twice its previous length, and having then had the benefit of copy editing by the distinguished Wikipedians User:Ssilvers and User:JackofOz, I should now like to take the article to GA (and perhaps beyond), to which end further input would be most gratefully received.

Merci, mesdames et messieurs, Tim riley (talk) 16:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Magicpiano

This article has come a ways since I first reviewed it more than a year ago; you've certainly addressed the deficiencies I mentioned. I think content-wise it's in pretty good shape, although I wonder if you quote the clearly-admiring Copland a bit much.

Good point. I have cut back the Copland quotes. – Tim riley (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

If you're considering this article for GA or FA, the media will require some attention. Some images and audio (I only spot-checked) don't have adequate sourcing, which will at FA lead to questions about copyright or licensing. This includes the multi-image montages you assembled -- the sourcing and rights on all subsidiary images need to be verified. I recommend adding {{Information}} templates to image pages that don't have them.

I'm a bit out of my depth here. For the composite pics I have used images from Commons, which are ipso facto freely usable, are they not? My own recent additions are accounted for on the copyright front, I believe. I have to admit that I don't know how to apply the {{Information}} templates. Perhaps I'd better seek expert advice from an image specialist. – Tim riley (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Just because images are uploaded to Commons does not mean they actually are freely usable; I've seen many images where the metadata is obviously wrong (uploader claims "own work" for an image of an historic painting, for example). These things are not normally scrutinized that I am aware of, but they are checked during FAC.

Consider File:Ambroise Thomas3.jpg, used in the montage File:Thomas-dubois.jpg. There is no useful metadata about who took the photo, when it was taken, or when it was first published, on the image's page; at least some of these items are necessary to determine the image's copyright status. It does contain a link to Swedish WP that is in fact for a different image of Thomas. This lack of provenance and sourcing for this one image will raise immediate objections from an image reviewer at FAC; every image, including montage sub-images, will be scrutinized in this way, as will the audio.

You might say "well the subject died in 1896, it must be PD". If the photographer was French, and took the photo in 1895 as a young man, and died only in 1945, this photo is still copyrighted. (France has copyright until 70 years after death of creator for most works.) If the photographer was American, and did not publish the photo until 1925, it is still under copyright. (I imagine the latter case to be farfetched, but the former case is entirely plausible in the absence of any claims of origin.)

Adding information templates to images is easy: the image page is editable (you have to click through to the Commons version of the page for images stored there, and may want to set up an account there if you haven't already). Magic♪piano 19:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I remember now finding when working on an earlier article that Commons files are not always what they seem. I've removed all inadequately documented images and replaced them with images that have creators' and/or publication dates documented. Thank you for this. I had already asked an image specialist to check the article, and I hope it will now merit the thumbs-up. - Tim riley (talk) 11:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I also suggest breaking up the audio; there is enough space in the article to place some of them near where the work is mentioned. (It would of course be nice to have more audio, but then this is what's available at the moment...)

Oo-er! This sounds a bit technical, but I'll have a go. The point is certainly taken. – Tim riley (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You can see how I did it at Franz Schubert. Magic♪piano 19:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

--Magic♪piano 20:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Moved to vocal and chamber sections accordingly. - Tim riley (talk) 11:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for these pointers. I shall revisit accordingly. - Tim riley (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Kudpung

Hi Tim. The lead and the first para of section music contains the same statement: The composer Aaron Copland wrote of them, "The themes, harmonies, form, have remained essentially the same, but with each new work they have all become more fresh, more personal, more profound. I would suggest that you could remove the one from the lead without having a negative effect on the article as a whole. I have made a couple of very minor tweaks. The article is quite long, and broad in its scope, is well well sourced, especially from paid-for sources to which I assume you or the co-editors have subscribed.

Good point. Done - Tim riley (talk) 07:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I would also suggest slightly rearranging the Biography section. I would rename the section Personal life, and split sub-sections such as First musical appointments and any others to do with his professional musical development into a main section Career. Otherwise, stuff such as Marriage looks a bit odd in amongst everything else.

I'll ponder on this. Extracting the Viardot engagement from the 1877 events could be a problem. Tim riley (talk) 07:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Later: My means of getting round this is renaming the "Marriage" section, thereby keeping the narrative chronological. Tim riley (talk) 11:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless I have missed anything very important, IMO the article is certainly a GAC, and once promoted, could rapidly become a FA. I hope this helps. -- User:Kudpung 04:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC) (Copied here from Kudpung's talk page Tim riley (talk) 07:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC))

Smerus

1st para - 'His harmonic and melodic language affected how harmony was later taught.' - well, maybe in France, but it is rather a far-reaching claim (and not justified by the article text) unless so qualified. Otherwise it seems to me a very thorough and informative coverage of a composer whose music I personally find I can respect but not esteem - you might by the way cite an example or two from those less overwhelmed than Copland and Slonimsky, as I think Fauré's reputation still remains for many un cas discutable. (This seems by the way a mean response to your kind comments and review on Wagner, so as a consolation if you are passing through Levoca in October I will give you a free ticket to hear Julian Lloyd Webber playing the Elegie there).

• Good point. I inherited this opening from previous editors, and shall be very happy to revise it. Tim riley (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

PS I don't want to bang on about Copland (which I suppose means I do), but on further consideration - his article is now over 80 years old, and was specifically written as a eulogy. I think relying on it for plums as a contemporary source could therefore be a bit iffy. (Its attitude also shows in the rather doubtful (to modern commentators) comparisons such as Mendelssohn = talent vs. Bach = genius). Against that you could set the use of Newman (published in the 1930s) as a source in the Wagner article; but in Newman's case all subsequent writers have acknowledged his objectivity as well as his research and he continues to be regarded as a gold standard (for Wagner anyway). I don't know if similar could be said for Copland.

• The difficulty is that unlike the exceedingly extensive Wagner literature, the main Fauré literature in English consists of Nectoux, Nectoux and more Nectoux, with a dash of Jones - so one is wont to grab anything off piste like the Copland. But your comment is fair, and I'll look again at the amount of stuff quoted from him. I'm grateful for, and will certainly act on, your suggestions. Tim riley (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Peter Cohen

An interesting article, I was particularly struck by your approach to disucssing the music which is an interestign contrast to what we have in the Wagner article.

Like some of the people above I do think that the selection of quotes is somewhat hagiographic. The comment in the lede on his being recognised as the greatest French composer of his day is not, as far as I can tell, substantiated. Perhaps they discounted the already dead Debussy and Saint-Saens, but Ravel and Satie were still going. I should have thought that most writers would place at least two of those four ahead of Faure. And the careers of Bizet, Franck (okay not necessarilly French), Poulenc, Honneger, Chausson, Lalo, Duparc, Massenet, Dukas and Offenbach all overlapped with his to a greater or lesser extent.

• Fair cop. This was drafting I inherited from previous editors and I am by no means bound to it with hoops of steel (though I have an idea it was a paraphrase of Grove - I'll check and amend as needed.)
• As above, I'll revisit and prune the Copland quotes. Tim riley (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Apart from that, please consider how you order or present the list of trips abroad with Messager. The trip to London in 1882 is before a lot of those mentioned earlier. (Parsifal was first performed in 1882 and Mastersingers wasn't presented at Bayreuth until 1888.)--Peter cohen (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• That is very helpful indeed! When one is agglomerating facts from several sources, chronology is apt to suffer. I certainly hadn't checked the dates against those of Wagner premieres, and will attend to it without delay. Thank you for spotting it! Tim riley (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, as the author of Bayreuth canon I knew where to look for the specific dates I gave you. (Well, Parsifal I knew...) Glad to have been of help.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments

Sorry to be late for the party (blame Monteverdi) but I am reading the article now with much interest. Here are a few comments relating to the lead:-

• To give the opening a bit more impact, suggest transfer the sentence beginning "Among his best-known works..." to the first paragraph, so that this reads:

Gabriel Urbain Fauré (pronounced: [ɡabʁiɛl yʁbɛ̃ fɔʁe]; 12 May 1845[1] – 4 November 1924) was a French composer, organist, pianist and teacher. He was one of the foremost French composers of his generation, and his musical style influenced many 20th century composers. Among his best-known works are his Nocturnes for piano, the songs "Après un rêve" and "Clair de lune", the Élégie, for cello and orchestra, the Pavane, the Dolly Suite, incidental music to Pelléas et Mélisande, Masques et bergamasques and his Requiem.

Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'd actually reduce the list of best-known works, which at present is rather too long to suit its purpose. Choose three - four at most.

Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Combine the shortened third and the final paragraphs. I've tried this, it works well.

Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• There may be nothing you can do about this, but...it really is a bit disturbing, seeing old Gabriel staring resolutely away from the article in the lead image. Have you considered an exchange of positions with one of the others?

Point taken, but this is by so long a distance the best-known portrait of Fauré that I don't think I can really relegate and replace it. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

More to follow soon. Brianboulton (talk) 23:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Second instalment

Early years

• Try and avoid "...Saint-Saëns. Saint-Saëns..."

Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• "the first of his choral works" - or "earliest"?

Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

First musical appointments

• Image placement rules require that the "young Faure" image should be placed after, not before, its section title.

Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• "was offered the post" → "accepted the post"

Redrawn. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• "ing" warning: the "ing" count is rising ("supplementing his income by taking private pupils, giving..."

Redrawn. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe this is a little cumbersome: "In March, Saint-Saëns retired from the Madeleine, succeeded as organist by Théodore Dubois, who had until then occupied the subordinate post of choirmaster, to which Fauré was appointed in his place." I'd simplify to: "In March, Saint-Saëns retired from the Madeleine, succeeded as organist by Théodore Dubois, his choirmaster, to which subordinate post Fauré was now appointed"

Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• "grief" is usually associated with death and bereavement rather than being dumped by one's girlfriend (not that that ever happened to me, oh no). Maybe "distress"? Or replace the whole phrase: "To distract Faure, Saint-Saens..." etc

Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• "They jointly composed, and frequently performed as a party piece, the irreverent Souvenirs de Bayreuth, a short piano piece for four hands using themes from The Ring in what the Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians describes as a "skittish" manner." Too long and complicated for one sentence. Suggest: "They frequently performed as a party piece their joint composition, the irreverent Souvenirs de Bayreuth. This short, skittish piano work for four hands sends up themes from The Ring.

Excellent! Done. (Also pinched for recycling in the Messager article) – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Middle years

• Avoid "many" repeat near end of first para. Make the second one "most"

Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Last line, perhaps "to emphasise the positive aspects of a work."[2] (rather than "see"

Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Head of the Conservatoire

• I'm a bit concerned that neither of the images give a date of original publication, which might affect their PD status in the US if this cannot be established as before 1923.

Happily, both the photographers died more than 100 years ago – their dates are firmly established and there's no doubt that these two pictures are out of copyright in the UK. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• It's a while since Widor was mentioned. Perhaps give his full name or other reminder?

Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Requiem: this is the first mention of the Requiem since the lead. AS this is Faure's best-known work (in the UK anyway, and perhaps elsewhere) we should at least have been told when it was written. I reaise that the work will be much discussed later on, but a few brief words about it would be helpful here.

Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• The list of tributes from other composers is a bit confusing. Chronologically we have reached about 1910, so its odd to see Tchaikovsky (d. 1893) among figures such as Richard Strauss and Aaron Copland (b. 1900) Maybe "Tchaikovsky had thought him adorable..."

Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Last years and legacy

• Two successive quotes in first paragraph is difficult; they should be separately cited, and I think the longer should be attributed as well as cited.

Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Give date, not just year, of death.

Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Give the author of the centenary tribute, rather than "The Musical Times wrote..."

Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That does for the biographical element. I'll look at the music tomorrow. This is an excellent article, informative and easy to read. Up to now I have known little of Faure beyond the Requiem; I feel my musical education is continuing. Brianboulton (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

This is hugely helpful – thank you. Please don't hurry to complete your comments, as I'll be in deepest Cumbria with little internet access until next weekend, when I shall greatly enjoy addressing the above. - Tim riley (talk) 10:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments on the Music sections

Music section

• The Copland quote at the start of the section is a little long. Would it be possible to paraphrase most of it, and restrict the quote to a key sentences and/or phrases? (You have done this successfully in the next paragraph)

Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Despite the links, I think that Sackville-West and Shawe-Taylor ought to be described as "Critics..."

Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• "learned learnt" - which one do you want to keep?

Dealt with. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Third para: the word "subtle" appears twice in one sentence

Dealt with. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• The opinion that Fauré's later works do not display the easy charm of his earlier music, and the following quotation, need to be attributed in the text.

Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Vocal music

• Again, views such as "there is little sign of the artist to come" need to be attributed.

Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Just a comment. "The Requiem is acknowledged as a source of inspiration for the similar setting by Duruflé." This seems a somewhat downbeat tribute to Faure's geat work. Personally, I have never heard of Duruflé's Requiem, or Duruflé (though maybe that's due to my slight knowledge of French music).

The Duruflé comment was inherited from an earlier editor, and I am not bound to it with hoops of iron. I've deleted it. (The Duruflé is a lovely work, nonetheless.)

• Incidentally, Poulenc hated the Requiem and said it was a real penance for him to hear it. Source available on request.

Interesting. I love Poulenc, and am very surprised he thought that. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Piano works

• More attribution needed

Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about the punctuation in "above all others'." You may be right, but it looks odd.

Redrawn. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

No comments on the "Orchestral and chamber works" and "Recordings" sections. I think, however, that the "Musical assessment" needs more than a quote from an anonymous biographical dictionary entry. It makes a weak ending to the article.

Two other modern assessments added. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That's it. Don't hesitate to contact me if any of my comments don't make sense. I look forward to seeing the article advance. Brianboulton (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)