Talk:Thomas Beecham/GA1

GA Review: initial comments

This is an impressive and meticulously researched article, but at 70 kilobytes it is much too long. I believe it could lose at least a third of its present length, and still be a comprehensive account of Beecham’s life and work. The main problem is the exhaustive listings of works, performances, recordings etc, that pervade most of the sections. These are quite difficult to plough through, and they spoil the flow of the reading.

In almost every case these lists could be drastically reduced, with benefit to the article, by giving just a few selected examples. Some of the lists, I have to say, are really rather dull – the 18 American orchestras which are named, one by one, in the “40s” section, is a case in point – and could be dropped altogether. Most of the "Observations" section is basically trivia, as is the “Rehearsals” section. The story about Princess Mary, which is amusing, might be OK fitted into the "Private Life" section, but the Desert Island Disc list should go, in my view.

I really do think that there is the basis of a top-quality article here, if you can see your way to cutting it down to a more reasonable size. I also have numerous smaller points for you to consider:-

• “…first British conductor to have a regular international career”. This ought to be referenced in some way. I don’t like citations in leads, but this fact is not mentioned, as far as I can remember, anywhere else in the article. Could you say, e.g. “According to X, he was the first….”etc Done
• I personally find the “not only…..but” format a bit ugly. Can you reword this sentence? (This is not a critical point so don’t spend too much time on it.)Done. I have removed reference to Mozart and Haydn here. I was trying to make the point that when TB was young they too were on the whole underrated, but this can be dispensed with
• You should give Balfe as composer of The Bohemian Girl in the "Beecham’s First Orchestra" section. Done
• In the same section the word orchestra occurs four times in the first one-and-a-half lines - can you rephrase to avoid this? Done
• In the "Opera" section you change from numerics to written-out numbers in the second paragraph. There are rather too many numbers in this paragraph anyway, and I was momentarily confused by the last sentence. I wonder if the para could be simplified? Done. I've hacked away as suggested in this section
• In the third para of the "Opera" section you sometimes identify composers with works, sometimes not. Perhaps there should be consistency. Also, you give the Italian names of Mozart’s Italian operas and the English names of his German ones – though later in the article you refer to Die Zauberflote. Again, there should be consistency. Good to see Tristan classed with the “popular” operas, though. Anglicised wherever possible - not Cosi, of course
• The 4th para of this section doesn’t seem to be about opera. Header amended
• “Played in the pit” might need explaining to non-musical people, and “baronetcy” to non-English people Links to explanations inserted
• In the "Bedford" section, “£1m” or "£1 million" would be better than “one million pounds”. Also, in the last para, I think the words “to the Duke of Bedford” are superfluous. Done
• What were the Official Receiver’s claims? Presumably something to do with the Chancery suit previously mentioned, but would it be possible to put these proceedings into non-legal terms? This was a direct lift from The Survey of London, and I am not able to elaborate - so I have conflated the creditors.
• The term “public company” may need explanation outside England. Done
• On the German tour, to whom did Beecham make the remark: “Now I know what’s wrong with Germany”? Do we actually need two anti-Hitler remarks to make the point here? I'm all for slagging Hitler off, but the point here is surely more to demonstrate Beecham's wit, and we don't really need two examples on the same theme. Done
• In the "Royal Philharmonic" section the third paragraph is not about the Royal Phil. Header amended
• In "Later Years" a date needs linking Done
• In "Repertoire", the Haydn paragraph, the whole first sentence is far too technical for the general reader, and needs simplification. Done
• Same para, EMI needs linking Done
• What is the significance of the “Protestant” quip in the "German" section? Also, the Falstaff quote in the Italian section is incomprehensible to the uninitiated. Expunged
• In "Honours and Decorations" the President of France should have a name. Done

I have put the article “on hold” at GAN, in the hopes we can resolve these issues fairly quickly. I’d be glad to hear your initial response to my suggestions. I would say finally that, despite what might appear as a raft of criticisms, I have great respect for the effort and care that has gone into the article, and am anxious to help if I can in getting it into the best possible shape. Brianboulton (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I am adding the following to enable you to match my comments with GA criteria.

1. Well written: The prose, grammar and spelling are fine, though as pointed out the language is a bit technical at times. There is a problem with lists - although they are not in tabulated form, some whole paragraphs are effectively lists. Marginal FAIL

2. Factually accurate: No problem, PASS

3. Broad coverage: You certainly have covered the whole topic, but the article contains a great many unnecessary details. Reluctant FAIL

4. Neutral: PASS

5. Stable: PASS

6. Images: PASS. The Queen's Hall photo could do with a fuller caption.

I hope this helps. Brianboulton (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Most helpful, thank you. I'll redraft in the next day or so for further scrutiny. Tim riley (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Now done. I have added explanatory notes against each of your suggestions above. On the question of the Beecham stories, I have removed the Desert Island Discs, and would prefer to move the good old 'He's still King' story to the Wikiquote page, labelling it unsourced. It is often told, but it does not appear in any of the six books about TB that I have read, and online it is one of those circular citations where site X cites site Y which cites site Z - but with no verifiable original reference. Grateful for your thoughts. Tim riley (talk) 13:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

GA review: final comments

You've dealt with all my specific points, and you've shortened the article to 55kb, which is still long but not excessively so. Until you get to the "Observations" section, all the information you give is relevant and makes for a comprehensive and strong article. I still have problems with "Observations", and more especially with the "rehearsals" subsection. At least the "king" story is funny, but the anecdotes in "rehearsals" are pretty tame. The section and subsection together give the article a somewhat trivial conclusion. Can I suggest a compromise? Ditch the rehearsals subsection altogether. Rename the "Observations" section "Beecham's character", or some such, to draw attention away from the trivia. The king story can remain as an example of Beecham's characterful wit. I'm sure that this will add quality to the article. Please get back to me when you've thought about it.

I have done a bit of editing, mainly nbsp spacing and the like. May I say that, if you are to take the article forward to peer review, with FAC in mind, you will need to get a MoS expert to give it a going-over. I notice, for example, that the page references have ordinary hyphens instead of ndashes. I am not making this a GA point, but it will need looking at later. My view is that, subject to my point above and some MoS cleanup, the article is good potential FAC material. Brianboulton (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I copy edited the whole article except for the 'rehearsals' and 'observations' section, and I will do that after you consider Brianboulton's comments above. Also, since you deleted some material throughout the article, I suspect that there are a few names, etc. that now need blue links. I picked up a couple, but I bet there are more. Thanks to Brian for helping Tim to polish up this fine article into an even more lustrous one. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Warmest thanks to BB and SS! I have been reluctant to prune the Rehearsals and Observation sections because they have been contributed by other editors, and I don't want to arrogate the article as my sole property. I have done the deed with the Rehearsals section and trimmed gently in the Observations.Tim riley (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that should do the trick. Now the article ends up on a light and snappy note, and the whole thing has been trimmed down a manageable length. Well done, Tim. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well done! The article looks great now, and I'm sure will be a worthy FAC candidate. I have fixed most of the ndashes, nbsps and datelinks, but no doubt a few remain and as I said earlier, it would be worth getting a style expert to give it the once-over, if you want to take it forward. Also I have found with my own articles that, however good I think I can get them, a good copyedit always improves them.

The article is passed for GA. My official review report will appear here shortly; meantime, my congratulations on a really good article, and I am very pleased to have had a hand in it, although the credit must go to the main editors. Brianboulton (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This article is a very comprehensive, well-written account of Beecham's life, an excellent summary of his contribution to music, with enough personal detail to provide a colourful portrait of the man. I fixed some MoS issues and am sure that there are no significant ones now outstanding. The images are well-chosen, with fair-use rationales where appropriate. It is very clearly of GA standard.

In terms of individual GA criteria the summary is as follows:

• Well-written:PASS
• Referenced: PASS
• Broad coverage: PASS
• Neutral: PASS
• Stable: PASS
• Images: PASS

Brianboulton (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)