Talk:BBC Symphony Orchestra/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 10:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll review this but might not be for a few days.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  10:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, will do the bulk of the review tomorrow. Some initial points:


 * Lead:


 * "and is the only one of the city's five major symphony orchestras not to be self-governing." Not sure exactly what you mean here, you mean the BBC runs it from further afield?
 * It's not that. It's that of the five London orchestras the LSO, LPO, Philharmonia and RPO are all self-governing, and the BBC SO is not. In the other four orchestras, the players are the owners and bosses; the BBC players are merely salaried employees of the Beeb. Tim riley (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "The orchestra was originally conceived as a joint enterprise by the BBC and the conductor Sir Thomas Beecham, but the latter withdrew" When was this, is the reason for his withdrawal controversial or not?
 * There was no sudden parting of the ways. Beecham became gradually disengaged in 1929-30. No rancour: it was just that Beecham wanted his own orchestra for opera, live concerts and gramophone recordings, and the BBC had other priorities. Tim riley (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you state the date then?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  14:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Tim riley (talk)


 * "but the senior management of the post-war BBC denied the orchestra the resources to meet competition from new and well-funded orchestras." "denied" seems a strong word which seems to indicate some sort of resentment towards the BBC for starving the orchestra which I think affects neutrality. "the BBC didn't allocate enough funds to meet compeition or something might be a better way to word it.
 * Agreed. Will do. Tim riley (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC) And now done. Tim riley (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "and orchestral morale dropped". affected orchestral morale I think would be a better way to word it.
 * Not sure about that: "affected" could be for the better or for the worse. I think it's clearer as it is. Tim riley (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OK.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  14:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * "pioneering avant garde music" the subject of this is unclear. Avant Garde covers a broad range of experimental music I think and pioneering, really? Can you elaborate a bit more on this, it seems a bit if a loose description?
 * I'll have to ponder on this. Truly I'm surprised that it is contentious as it stands, and I'll revisit over the weekend. Tim riley (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Changed all refs to "avant garde" to "Second Viennese School" or suchlike. Tim riley (talk)
 * That's clearer, thanks.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  14:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Background


 * "November 1922 the BBC had started broadcasting from its "2LO" transmitter with its own musical ensembles. The first such groups were the "2LO Dance Band", the "2LO Military Band", the "2LO Light Orchestra", and the "2LO Octette", all of which began broadcasting in 1923." What began in November 1922 then?
 * Well, I do say almost from the outset. Tim riley (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "At first Henry Wood, the founding conductor, prevailed on the corporation to engage his Queen's Hall Orchestra for each Prom season, " - "prevailed on the corporation to engage" is a little awkward, can you reword a bit?
 * "persuaded the corporation"? Tim riley (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC) Done Tim riley (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Much better.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  14:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Tim riley (talk) 09:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Foundation
 * Twenty-seven players " inconsistency in using figures and numbers. In other places you use digits for figures above 10.
 * Drat! Quite right. Shall amend and check throughout for consistency. Tim riley (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As you were! This is at the start of a sentence. I think the convention is dotty, but there it is, that in mid-sentence it's 27 but one mustn't open a sentence with numerals. Tim riley (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

A general concern, although something not compulsory for GA, is that you have a tendency to rely on quotes for describing the changes to the orchestra. A couple of times is fine but my feeling is that it affects the flow of the prose when each section describing its history is interrupted with a quote and because this is repeated many times for a lot of paragraphs it reads as a little monotonous. I would convert more of the quotes to prose to improve the flow, but that might just be my personal opinion only on the matter and might not be shared by others. For instance 1960s-1980s ". In The Times, Paul Griffiths wrote, "Sir John's seven-year period with the orchestra has been marked by growing orchestral confidence and many memorable performances."" I'm not sure you really need to quote that directly.
 * I have sympathy with your view, but I am conscious of the need to avoid plagiarism or close paraphrase. Nonetheless, our respected Wikicolleague User:Brianboulton has from time to time picked me up on the same point as you raise here. I'll review. Tim riley (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I understand this, and as I say it isn't a requirement for GA. But if you intend taking it to FA ion terms of readability I think it does affect it in parts.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  14:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A point well worth bearing in mind, I agree, though I have no FA ambitions for this article. I have got the LSO to GA already and I have vague aspirations to do the same for the LPO, Philharmonia and RPO in due course. I'll watch out for epidemics of quotitis. Tim riley (talk) 09:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * 1990s
 * "The orchestra was seen by some as "a bolshie lot" and "grumpy"" Who is some?
 * I think the title of the cited source speaks volumes: "'Grumpy? What's that?' – Jiri Belohlavek, the BBCSO's new chief conductor, isn't going to be daunted by the orchestra's bolshie reputation". Tim riley (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The section which begins "The BBC SO is the associate orchestra of the Barbican Centre in London, where it gives an annual season of concerts" to the end of the section I think it would be best if you broke it into a new section separate from history, it doesn't really belong on history. Something like "Function" or something. make it smoother? Tim riley (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Would "In [year - I'll have to look it up] the orchestra was appointed as associate orchestra of the Barbican ..."
 * Some separate section for this information in any form I think would solve it but up to you.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  14:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Done Tim riley (talk) 09:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I spot some inconsistencies in linking newspapers. Ref 16 you link the Observer but don't link the Times and other papers. Why is this?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  11:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * References
 * Well, the theory is that if I link from the main text I don't link again from the refs, but I can't put hand on heart and say it is consistently so here. I'll go over the article during the weekend and look out for this point. Tim riley (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Revisited. Now consistent with my precept, above, I think. Unlinked Observer (which is already blue-linked in the text) but linked Guardian and Sunday Times, which aren't). Tim riley (talk) 09:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

Looks good, thanks. The infobox was completely pointless and a perfect example of infobox abuse when it had no significant information. I'm guessing it wasn't you who added it, if it was, apologies for speaking up on the matter hehe! I've uploaded some photographs which I think are an improvement in place. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  13:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)