Talk:Boosey & Hawkes/Archive: GA review

GA -- review

Hi -- this is my first GA-review, but I figure it's time to give back to WP on a company I know something about:

• 1 Well-written and WP:MoS -- passes both easily. Some things that are not perfect: "External link" can be removed because of it appears in the References. The redlinks to Leslie Boosey and Ralph Hawkes seem unlikely to be filled soon and could be cut. The lede might be overloaded with composers' names. Listing the other fields the company is involved in at the beginning implies that these are an important part of the company, but given their discussion in the article, they seem much less important. Far more coverage is given in the article to its former involvement in the music instrument business, so I think this should be included up here. Twice (in the lede and later), B&H is called the largest classical music publisher in the world--how is this measured? Number of works sold or total sales or total profits? (see also below)
  • Removed red links to Leslie Boosey and Ralph Hawkes. (Actually, wouldn't it be better to leave them in so that future articles on these persons are automatically linked? There aren't an excessive number of red links in the article.)
  • Reworded article to state that Boosey & Hawkes claims to be the largest specialist classical music publisher in the world – the claim is made on its website.
  • Suggest that "External links" section is left intact, even though it repeats a link already stated in the "References" section, as this gives an indication to other editors that further relevant links may be added.

Jacklee 18:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't personally think that a few red links are a problem, but I've been ask to remove them from GA's I've worked on, and so I thought I'd be cautious. Fine on External links too, again just something I've seen asked for in the past.-- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• 2 factually accurate and verifiable -- (a) references, yup. (c) no original research -- yup. (b) citations to reliable sources -- five of the fifteen references cite B&H as sources, but none of these deal with anything likely to be disputed and seem well-thought out (for instance, I would consider B&H's website a reliable source for the list of companies currently comprising B&H.), so fine. However: The citation that B&H is the largest classical music publisher needs a citation not from B&H -- if they're the only one who says so, then we may need to rewrite as "B&H claims to be the largest..." even though I'm pretty sure it's true. Fact check: B&H might publish copyrighted editions of every piece in Stravinsky's catalog, but that doesn't mean that every piece of Stravinsky's is under copyright or even under copyright by B&H. Same with Richard Strauss. (2b -- on hold)
  • Reworded article to remove claim that Boosey & Hawkes owns the copyrights to the complete catalogues of certain composers, as its website merely states that it has an "unrivalled catalogue of music copyrights". Jacklee 18:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• 3 Broad in its coverage (b) focused -- yes! (a) the pre-1930 history of T. Boosey & Co. could easily be supplemented from the New Grove article on B&H. Further sources could come from C. G. Mortimer article in Music Opinion, vol. 42, 1939, pp. 181-90, or W. Boosey's history of the company Fifty Years of Music (London 1931). Consulting the NG article should be mandatory in any case just to see how much more comprehensive the WP article is about the post-1930 side of the company. (Only a true geek like me would want discussion of B&H's editorial/engraving practices, so I don't think that aspect is necessary for "major aspects") -- on hold, pending pre-1930s history.
  • Query – should the article contain much more information on the pre-1930 history of T. Boosey & Co. than it already has? Perhaps that information should go into a separate article on T. Boosey & Co. Jacklee 18:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Added 1931 book to "Further reading" section. Jacklee 18:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If there were an article on T. Boosey & Co., then most of the information would go there. I think that one would still have a paragraph or two under a section "Publishing before the merger of T. Boosey and Hawkes" with a notice added on:

Main article: T. Boosey & Co.

So in either case at least some fleshing out of this section would be needed. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Added information on Boosey & Co. prior to the 1930 merger based on information from Grove Music Online. I don't have access to the Mortimer article in Music Opinion or the other article in the same journal currently listed in the "Further reading" section. If you do, you may want to see if there's anything else in those articles worth mentioning here. Also, why don't you include the Mortimer article in the "Further reading" section and see if the citation for the other article is complete? Jacklee 16:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• 4 Neutral point of view -- (a) fair -- yes and (b) balanced -- yes. Avoids cheerleading for B&H in presenting some of its amazing accomplishments in securing the publishing rights to so many contemporary composers.

• 5 Stable -- yes.

• 6 Images -- (a) tagged -- yes -- and (c) one non-free image (B&H logo) has rationale -- yes. Pass. The composer and opera house image are nice, but don't add much to the article since the images (rather than their subjects in general) have no particular connection to B&H. A B&H instrument would be better, for instance. Best would be a fair use image of an iconic B&H brown pocket score cover--especially from a composer whose works are almost completely published by B&H--to my mind, nothing shouts Boosey faster than those brown scores.
  • Added an image of a brown Boosey & Hawkes music score cover – is this what you were referring to? Please help to improve the licensing and fair use justification if it is insufficient. Jacklee 18:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I've found a Japanese website that has many photographs of Boosey & Hawkes euphoniums – http://www.euphstudy.com/tsurszure/bessonwork/logo/logo.html. Will see if the webmaster is agreeable to allowing one or more of them to be used in the article. (If you speak Japanese, please help!) Would also love to be able to use this photograph (tuba built for John Philip Sousa, now at Harvard University?) and this one (1970s advert), but don't think we'll be able to justify fair use! Jacklee 18:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh what a hoot! Too bad there isn't yet an article Sexual imagery in band instrument advertisements. Then fair use would be a snap! -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• 7 Overall -- on-hold for some small changes in (2), a nice to have in (1), and a bit more on early history in 3a.

-- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 02:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC) (strikethrough added 11 June; extended by Jacklee on 15 June 2007)

Thanks for your helpful comments. I was the editor who carried out a major expansion of the article from a stub, but won't be able to work on the article until after 12 June 2007 as I'm on holiday in Tuscany. But other editors interested in this article are most welcome to help improve the article! Cheers, Jacklee 08:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC) (Damn this Italian keyboard – all the keys are in the wrong places!)

I'll see if the GA review rules are flexible--I think that since the diffs between the current status and GA are small, that the On Hold should be extended to accommodate a vacation. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 05:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Have started the cleanup process. See comments above. Cheers, Jacklee 18:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Reads wonderfully! Congrats on the Good Article! -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for reviewing the article and your useful comments. I've added a bit more information on the scaling-down of Boosey & Hawkes' instrument-manufacturing business, and added an image of an 1878 Boosey & Co. euphonium. Cheers, Jacklee 16:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Ruslik (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)