Talk:The Maiden in the Tower/GA1

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

Reviewer: Aza24 (talk · contribs) 17:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Taking up this one.  Aza24  (talk)   17:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you, . If possible, might you be able to read this article with a mind for FAN, which will inevitably my next step with it, provided it finds success here. Warmly ~ Silence of Järvenpää 17:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I am always happy to scrutinize more!  Aza24  (talk)   17:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Just finished the bulk of Josquin today, so I expect to get a review going tomorrow. Best –  Aza24  (talk)   05:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Wonderful! Congrats on the JdP milestone, and I do hope you'll enjoy reading Jungfrun i tornet. I think it's certainly one of the best research jobs I've done on WP so far. Thanks in advance for this review (I'm planning on applying what I learn from you here to Kullervo, which I'm holding off on for now.) :) ~ Silence of Järvenpää 17:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Aza! Thanks for your time on this review. I believe that I am finished addressing your comments/concerns. Warmly, ~ Silence of Järvenpää 14:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

History

 * ✅ Sentence needs a year next to the date,
 * ✅ should probably link Helsinki Orchestral Society at the earlier mention rather than in the premiere section
 * ✅ I adore the link "his metamorphosis from Wagner acolyte to Lisztian "tone painter""— but fear it will be too technical for FAC reviewers
 * I've changed it to: "...of his metamorphosis from Wagner acolyte to "tone painter" in the tradition of Liszt". Does this work better? Or is your issue about the use of the words 'metamorphosis' and 'acolyte'? ~ Silence of Järvenpää 04:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that's a lot better. It is possible that "tone painter" linking to symphonic poem, might be too much MOS:EASTEREGG, but I'm not sure  Aza24  (talk)   07:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * De-linked, especially since tone poem is linked in the sentence above. Come on SoJ! ((shakes head)) :P ~ Silence of Järvenpää 13:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ "But the lottery soirée was a good cause" — maybe include "But Sibelius figured" in here
 * ✅ Would introduce Glenda Dawn Goss with something "The musicologist/historian/music historian"
 * ✅ I think having "popular" in quotes is a bit excessive, if a reliable source is calling it that, I see no issue with a statement of it here
 * ✅ "a full capacity audience", surely? Otherwise its a big ambiguous
 * Haha! Okay, umm... I thought capacity meant full, but maybe I'm thinking of at capacity as an adjective. Anyway, I don't like the sound of "full capacity audience", so I'm changing it to "sold-out concert" ~ Silence of Järvenpää 22:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've heard before it as you had it before too, but figured it was the less ideal approach  Aza24  (talk)   07:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ Would link to curtain call, instrumentation and possibly woodwinds
 * ✅ The "For more, see:... " insert is a bit unorthodox, perhaps a note instead, or simply linking something like the "Finnish opera next" part to the desired section. The second one "For more, see: Posthumous revival" seems a bit unnecessary, since the designated section is the next one
 * I have gone ahead and deleted all intra-article page jumps. ~ Silence of Järvenpää 03:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ Its not clear that 'S:t Michel' is the Swedish name in this context
 * I made a footnote that explains the article uses 'Finnish name for city' ('Swedish name for city'). I also applied it to Vipurii (Vyborg) and Turku (Åbo)... I didn't think Helsinki (Helsingfors) was necessary, so just stuck with Helsinki. Does this work for you? ~ Silence of Järvenpää 22:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That is certainly fine, though I rather assumed you would use the template Word, which you should probably use for the article's first sentence anyways  Aza24  (talk)   07:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ The line "which, given the reviews at the premiere, was necessary to secure the opera's future" seems a bit editorial on your part, and perhaps not needed anyways (I think the information is implied already)
 * Deleted this line! :) ~ Silence of Järvenpää 04:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ " first decade-and-a-half" seems oddly specific, surely 'early' would suffice? How early exactly we're talking is already given by the subsequent break down by years
 * Deleted this clause. ~ Silence of Järvenpää 21:48, 28 August 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ The line "He discovered "hidden" within a concert overture lasting about 12 minutes" is phrased oddly, or at least, I can't make out exactly what it is saying
 * I've changed it to: "Collectively, they [the blue-pencil markings] constituted a "hidden" concert overture lasting about 12 minutes". Does this work better? ~ Silence of Järvenpää 04:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Structure and roles

 * ✅ The roles table needs some refs

Synopsis

 * ✅ Refs are not required by Synopsis sections, though are certainly not prohibited either, just thought I'd make sure you know this
 * Thanks! But is it okay if I keep them? I just like to be able to trace where I got bits of information, especially when I weave together multiple sources and when, as in this case, the libretto (at least as printed in CD liner notes) contains so few details. ~ Silence of Järvenpää 04:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Totally fine to keep, thought I'd just bring it up  Aza24  (talk)   07:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Music

 * ✅ The images are too big, need to be two thirds of that size at least
 * Gulp! I have idea how to do this. I haven't yet found a Lilypond example on WP that stinks the music examples down, and I did look and look. I wanted them smaller, too, and I apologize that I couldn't figure it out. ~ Silence of Järvenpää 04:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I took a stab by reading the Archives, and it appears that the only work-around is \layout line-width... so, I took a stab. As you'll see, this forced the music examples onto more lines (rather than shrinking the output's print size. And this, in turn, has the effect of having the music examples run into/overflow into the Context and Analysis section. ~ Silence of Järvenpää 02:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed I see neither option is ideal. May propose a third? You might consider streching both examples out as horizonatally as possible, and then centering them first in between the paragraphs and then (for the second excerpt) after the second. Something like Witold Lutosławski, though presumably with an image which is less massive.  Aza24  (talk)   08:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * LilyPond scores can be scaled using e.g.  as shown at Help:Score (although I think they are fine as they are, but I'm not a reviewer). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I played around with the code that Michael provided, and it did indeed shrink the scores' displays... but for some reason I cannot figure out, the first example ended up a different size than the second example, which over-ran the image frame... despite the code being the exact same. Perhaps it's because the latter cites more measures than the former? Anyway, I had kept the displays at 100% (rather than shrinking them), but have now centered them such that the text does not wrap around. Does this work? Certainly things look less scrunched. Let me know! :) ~ Silence of Järvenpää 01:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it looks better to me! Otherwise, I don't know of any way we could include the full images without breaking into the next section.  Aza24  (talk)   23:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ The links for the clarinets (e.g. (in B♭ and A)), French horn and Trumpet are rather misleading, I think, I would remove them
 * I'm sorry, but could you please clarify why it's misleading? I'm happy to make a change, but I just don't yet understand. ~ Silence of Järvenpää 04:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Certainly. I don't know whether to assume you are familiar with transposition or not, but its relation is surely more about intervals than key signatures. That is, a clarinet is in B-flat, means just that (every note is written down a major second from the sounding pitch and its name derives from the distance of said pitch from middle-C, again, apologies if you already know this information.), not that it is in 'B-flat major', which is a different concept entirely. Of course there is the more practical matter that only a reader who doesn't understand transposition would click those links in the first place, but then be faced with an article about "B-flat major" which doesn't explain (as it probably doesn't need to) what it means for an instrument (not a composition) to be in B-flat.  Aza24  (talk)   08:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh! I see, I think... so the problem wasn't giving the designations of B-flat, A, and F for the instruments (which I have seen editors add to some of my previous articles, and so to save them the trouble, I started doing it for them), it's that I linked to the articles I did. Thus, you're not telling me to delete the keys but merely to delink them? If so, then I will restore that content, as I deleted it a bit earlier probably because I didn't understand. (And, no, I didn't really know what transposition was, so your explanation was helpful.) : Do you think that, perhaps, I shouldn't be writing about classical music if I don't, well, understand music at a conceptual level (and, of course, I don't really remember how to read notation, either). Does it lead to problems in or seem noticeable as something missing from my article(s)? ~ Silence of Järvenpää 17:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, delink only! Topics like these are rather specialized, and in no way impede your ability to write Wikipedia articles, which are generally broad overviews. Transposing instruments are particularly confusing because of the many different reasons they exist, which prevents a straight-forward and direct explanation.  Aza24  (talk)   23:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ usually the string parts need not been written out entirely, "string section" would probably suffice, since there is so rarely variation to that grouping
 * ✅ The line "First, Sibelius does not use recitatives; rather the work is entirely lyrical and all words are sung" doesn't really make sense, since recitatives at this time were also sung (more often than not). I think I understand what you're trying to say, but it should be clearer
 * Oh, okay. See, an opera person I am not. Do you have a suggestion? What I am trying yo say is that there is no spoken dialogue in that chant-like style (which I what, as a layman, I thought a recitative was)... Tawaststjerna calls is "Wagnerian speech rhythm", I think. ~ Silence of Järvenpää 04:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Your definition is more or less what a recitative is, but the line's implication is that said "chant-like style" is not "sung", which is misleading at best, and incorrect at worst. perhaps "the work is entirely lyrical and melodic"? Not sure either.  Aza24  (talk)   07:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying this for me! Changed. ~ Silence of Järvenpää 17:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Looks pretty good so far, I think I'll get through the 'Context and analysis' section tomorrow—I am a terribly slow reader for GAs as I try to look very closely :)  Aza24  (talk)   03:36, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Aza! I think I am ready for your next move, whenever you're ready for Round II. Warmly, ~ Silence of Järvenpää 22:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Context and analysis

 * ✅ The first sentence here ("Several commentators have...") is rather long. I wonder if Sibelius's role and such can begin a new sentence instead
 * ✅ Isto line definitely needs a source
 * Deleted the line and the image... it was always a tiny stretch on my part. ~ Silence of Järvenpää 14:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ Would explain who Andrew Barnett is
 * ✅ The use of "darling" seems a little unencyclopedic, perhaps "favorite"? Though I'm not sure that is much better—I may be overthinking this entirely
 * ✅ The end of the sentence beginning with "he had been the editor..." feels like it should be in a note. It is making the sentence very long, and is perhaps too detailed for the main body –  Aza24  (talk)   07:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have partially converted this into a footnote: say Hertzberg was part of the Swedish press (which is important), and footnote the exact roles (which is less important). ~ Silence of Järvenpää 01:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Discography

 * ✅ Might want to be clearer in the text about which recording Solveig Kringelborn was in
 * Seems odd to include the recording year but not the publication years in the table –  Aza24  (talk)   07:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... I see your point, but of the two dates, certainly the date of recording is more important than the date of first release. And, moreover, for Discography of Sibelius symphony cycles, we used in those tables the former and did not provide the latter. Also, the publication years are provided in the refs. column, provided one hovers the cursor over the note. Adding an additional column for the publication date does end up scrunching the table even more, and adding the date parenthetically in the recording date column looks off (I tried it): e.g., 1983 (1984), which on my display causes a split onto two lines. I'll add the publication dates if you're keen on it, but if this was just a thought/minor comment, then I think my preference is to stick with what I have. Do please let me know! ~ Silence of Järvenpää 01:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, more of a minor comment I think, so no worries!  Aza24  (talk)   02:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

General thoughts
As a whole, the level of research in this article is at an incredibly high standard. I have no doubt that once the above issues are resolved, the article will pass the GA review. However, per your earlier request, in this section I will leave some detailed comments on what this article needs before FAC, things that would be beyond GA requirements. If you would like, we can move this part of the discussion to a PR and finish up the above issues to pass the GA. Otherwise, we can deal with this all before passing the GA. 07:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

✅ This occurs throughout, though is only somewhat occasional. What I mean is sometimes the article's tone becomes too flowery for an encyclopedia (I am reflecting on this solely from the view of an FAC reviewer, my own personal perspective is nothing but admiration for the interesting prose). I noticed this in particular in "The plot as allegory" section, 2nd paragraph. The line "foundered on the shoals" also struck me, but I noticed this kind of tone in a few other places, which I failed to recount. The 'Synopsis' section is of course an exception to some extent here, since any language needed to properly explain the plot should be used there, flowery or not. 07:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Editorializing
 * Changed "had labored to convert the shards of his abandoned opera" --> "had labored to convert his abandoned opera".
 * Deleted editorializing-esque words "lecherous, unscrupulous" and "beautiful" to describe Bailiff and Maiden, respectively (although, sources do this, too... using adjectives that are synonyms for mine). But, I suppose we don't need them in the lede and in the Plot as allegory sections.
 * Changed "had founded on the shoals of self-doubt and artistic evolution" --> "abandoned this opera due to self-doubt and artistic evolution"

~ Silence of Järvenpää 13:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

✅ There are just far too many direct quotes in this article. Of course for the "Premiere" and "Later opinions of Sibelius's music" sections, quotes are very much needed; however, if one has a section(s) they know will need a lot of quotes, they should be extra careful to lessen the amount for other sections. This will almost certainly be brought up at FAC. 07:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Too many quotes
 * Okay, yes, I tend to do that... I think it'll do a first pass, leaving quote from reviews/critics and from Sibelius... i.e., convert things that don't need to be quoted to paraphrases. ~ Silence of Järvenpää 13:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I cut out a ton of them... variously converted into paraphrases or deleted. There are still a lot in the section that pertain to the reviews of the music/libretto by critics and other commentators, i.e.: Premiere; Later opinions of Sibelius's music; and, Reasons for post-1981 neglect. But elsewhere, sections that were quote heavy, e.g., Opera and Finland's language strife; Withdrawal and suppression... have been converted. ~ Silence of Järvenpää 13:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

✅ There is a large use of parentheses in this article, which often make it difficult to read fluidly. I noticed this particularly in the third paragraph of the "Opera and Finland's language strife" section and the end of fourth. I should note that this is not a subtle hint to suggest such information be removed entirely, but it should be either integrated into the nearest sentence, put in a note, or made into its own sentence a lot more of the time than it is. 07:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Parentheses
 * I cut out a ton of them. Essentially, parenthesis are now just for categorization purposes, e.g., "The Lemminkäinen Suite (Op. 22, 1896)"; the native names of compositions, e.g., " King Charles's Hunt (Kung Karls jakt, 1852)"; the Swedish names of cities, e.g., "Turku (Åbo)"; instruments, e.g., "horn (in F)"; and the indication of score location, e.g., "Scene 4 (measures 867–882)". Also, I have kept the parenthetical format for the allegory stuff, because it saves space and I thought it still reads well, e.g., "...is freed subsequently (Finland's independence) by her Lover (Finnish nationalists)..." This appears also in the lede. ~ Silence of Järvenpää 13:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

✅ A more minor issue, but worth mentioning. Every time a new commentator is mentioned, they should be introduced in some way. This is mainly because the reader will have no insight into why that person has authority to speak on such a topic, and we should not hide an answer from them. 07:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Introduce people
 * Added introductions for: Glenda Dawn Goss, Erik Tawaststjerna, Tuomas Hannikainen, Andrew Barnett, Christopher Webber, Vesa Sirén, David Hurwitz, Cecil Gray, Robert Layton, and Hannu-Ilari Lampila. ~ Silence of Järvenpää 14:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

There are some citation issues at the moment. For one, Discogs is a user generated source, thus not reliable for FAC purposes (I do also wonder why the two CD refs are in notes rather than citation templates). There is also the matter of primary sources; I see no issue with using them for quoting newspapers of the time, particularly since you are getting them from the Sibelius museum. However, any other uses should always be avoided, if at all possibe. For instance, the use of ref 25 in the line "he had been the editor, theatre and art critic, and..." is not ideal  Aza24  (talk)   07:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Citations
 * A few comments: 1) I put the refs for the two CDs as efn rather than sfn because the sfn for BIS would link to the source that has Tawaststjerna as the author for the liner notes; but, the CD in its entirety is not by Tawaststjerna... indeed, I don't know who writes the pages of the CD that are not the liner notes/commentary. Any thoughts? Does my point even make sense? 2) Darn... I really like using the old newspapers to unearth lost information. Yes, primarily I use them for critics' reviews and/or information about the original program and evening. These details, unfortunately, are often only available via these reviews. I can see, however, that using the obituary for info about Hertzberg's career is not ideal, but again, I could not find a better source. Anyway, I have footnoted this info about him. ~ Silence of Järvenpää 14:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't consider these matters crucial to GAN (but certainly relevant for FAC), and in light of your terrific work here, I am passing now—congrats! I will start a thread on the talk page responding to these matters.  Aza24  (talk)   02:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)