Talk:London Symphony Orchestra/GA1

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 21:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That was a "false start", but I'm starting now. Sorry for the delayed start. Pyrotec (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments
I've done a "lighting quick" (a slight exaggeration) of the article and on this basis, i.e. not having checked any citations, copyright status, etc, I'd place the body of the article somewhere between GA and FA, but for an article of this depth" I suspect that the WP:Lead is a bit "thin". Note: this article is a WP:GAN nominee, so I'll only be reviewing it against WP:WIAGA.

I'm now going to work my way through the article, starting at the History section and finishing with the Lead. This is likely to another two or three days. Pyrotec (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * History -
 * Background -
 * Looks compliant. I added a couple of wikilinks.


 * Foundation-
 * Looks compliant. I added a couple of wikilinks.
 * Early years -

...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The "terms", presumably people such as composers, to which this phrase is referring is unclear: "stodgy programmes of insipid Cowen, worthy Stanford, dull Parry and mediocre Mackenzie". They need defining or wikilinking, whatever is easiest.
 * I think I'd prefer a footnote rather than linking from the quote. The MoS discourages the latter, though we all do it sometimes. I'll run up an explanatory note. Tim riley (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That nicely addressed the problem. Pyrotec (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, this subsection is OK.


 * First World War and 1920s -
 * Looks compliant. I added a wikilink.
 * 1930s & 1940s and 50s -
 * These two subsections appear to be compliant.
 * But just a minor point, the final paragraph of 1940s and 50s states: The average age of the LSO players dropped to about 30.[60]. Yes, it's verifiable but there is an unasked (and unanswered) question what was the average age before those principals left?
 * A wholly fair question, but I'm afraid I have no answer from any source known to me. If you think the absent antithesis is too obtrusive I am willing to lose the sentence. By the way, I was slightly worried that the juxtaposition of "With the new intake the orchestra rapidly advanced in standards" and "The average age of the LSO players dropped to about 30" was a bit tendentious in an ageist way. I'm glad it didn't strike you so, but perhaps you'd just revisit (though I tried several drafts to get all the relevant info in and couldn't improve on this.) Tim riley (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking it at the citation, it does not say that the age dropped, but it could be inferred, or "read between the lines". Overall, the wording of the final paragraph does not come across as ageist, so I'm going to close this comment. Pyrotec (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 1960s -
 * I'm not sure, firstly, if I understand the distinction between amateur and professional singers in the chorus (of the LSO chorus) and, secondly, After the professional element was removed ..... Were for instance the singers paid, if so is the differences that of full time and part time employment as a singer? What happened to the professional element?
 * Good. It isn't clear, and I'll reword. Thank you. Tim riley (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Later: now done. Tim riley (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It reads much better now, so I'm going to close this comment. Pyrotec (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, this subsection is OK.


 * 1970s and 80s -
 * This subsection appears to be compliant.
 * 1990s to 2010s -

...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks compliant.


 * Reputation -
 * This section looks compliant.


 * Recordings and films -
 * Looks compliant.


 * WP:Lead -
 * At three, or three to four paragraphs, the current WP:Lead is perhaps compliant in that limited aspect. However, its rather "thin" or "shallow" for an article of this length and within such confines it can't, and does not, reflect much of the substance to be found in the body of the article. I'd expect the lead to be perhaps 50 percent or 100% longer than it currently is.
 * Instance, its reason for formation (exclusivity clause) is given, but there is nothing about its cooperative nature and lack of salary / profit sharing agreement; nothing about loss of members, to form new organisations such as the Sinfonia of London and/or the creation of other organisations because the LSO was unwilling to change its stance (such as the LPO); nothing about some of its conductors that raised its standards, etc, before being "abruptly dropped"; nothing about the LSO Chorus.

At this point, I'm putting the review On Hold. Only the WP:Lead needs some work done, after that I'll award the article a, well-deserved, GA. Pyrotec (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. I don't dissent from your view about the lead. (I always struggle with writing leads.) I'll be away for a little while from tomorrow, but will have web access and so should be able to devote time to this on Wednesday or thereabouts.
 * Now done: duly augmented, I hope. I have included the points you mention (as well as a couple of others) with the exception of the dropping of Elgar and Harty, which I'm not sure is central to the narrative. Please ponder. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine, as a reviewer I can only say (if that is what I conclude) that the lead is not compliant with WP:Lead in respect of "coverage". The follow-on comments, e.g. about what could be added to improve it, were merely suggestions. P.S.: When I did my first masters, at the turn of the millennium, we had a tutorial on summarising. I'd never heard of wikipedia at that time; but that tutorial has come in quite useful for my wikpedia work. Pyrotec (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I envy you! I don't think I'll ever be much good at précising articles for the lead, and I'm always grateful for steers such as yours, above. Tim riley (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

An informative article, that I believe has the potential of making FA without too much (additional) effort.
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to 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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * A well-illustrated article, with relevant illustrations.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * A well-illustrated article, with relevant illustrations.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

An informative and very readable article; and I'm please to be able to award it GA-status. It is a "strong" GA and I believe that it could make FA without too much additional effort. Congratulations on a "fine" article. Pyrotec (talk) 20:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)