Talk:William Sterndale Bennett/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ravpapa (talk · contribs) 06:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

It was a pleasure reading this excellent article on the man who was one of the architects of modern music education, a pioneer in the field of arts administration, and undoubtedly Britain's leading composer of the early Romantic period. It will be a pleasure granting this article GA status, as my ensuing review will justify. The criticisms that I do have of the article might well be seen as a matter of personal taste, and certainly will not stand in the way of granting this article the status it deserves.

GA Criteria analysis
To receive GA status, the article must meet six criteria:

Well written
The article is certainly well written. The prose is clear and concise. It adheres to the manual of style.

Offhand, I did not notice any mixing of American and British spelling and usage. In general, usage is British ("amongst" rather than the American "among"). Editors who are good at this kind of thing should check it over to make sure there are no Americanisms like "color" lurking in the article.

The last paragraph of the article lead is problematic. The contention that "In recent years appreciation of Bennett's music has been rekindled and a number of his works, including a symphony, his piano concerti and many of his piano compositions, have been recorded" is unsupported in the article. You should add something - perhaps in the "Legacy" section - that supports this statement. Also, referring to things that are going to happen in the future ("In his bicentenary year of 2016 a number of concerts of his music are planned.") is very risky indeed. Aside from the fact that they might not happen, can you promise to be around to change it to past tense when it actually happens? I would suggest just leaving it as "2016 is the bicentenary year of his birth". Nuff said.

Verifiable
Excellent documentation. I think just about everything of importance ever written about the man is cited.

The use of end notes for comments, separate from the reference footnotes, is interesting, but perhaps a little pretentious. I used this trick in the article on Music of Israel to separate sources of recordings from other sources. On the other hand, I included comments with sources in the same section in the article on Grosse Fuge. So I suppose you could go either way. If I were writing the article, I would have gone with a mixed reference-end note section, but that is just a personal preference.

Broad in Coverage
It certainly covers all aspects of Bennett's life and career.

The article does contain occasional orphan factoids. For example, "in 1844 Bennett married Mary Anne Wood (1824–1862), the daughter of Commander James Wood RN." Who is this guy? Without some kind of context, Mary Anne Wood's progeny seems pretty irrelevant. I made a brief effort to figure out who this guy was - he could of been James Athol Wood, a pretty colorful character, but who possibly never married; or James Wood (1783 -1857), who it appears sailed to Pitcairn's Island in the HMS Pandora and married a Tahitian. I would say it is worth finding out - or deleting the guy from the article.

When I read the article a second or third time, I thought I saw other such dangling factoids, but now that I am writing this, I can't find them.

Neutral
Well, I don't really have much to say about this. Is it possible to write a non-neutral article about someone like this?

Stable
This and the previous criterion are really applicable to articles about the Tibetan liberation movement, or Messianic Jews, that are the subject of constant edit-warring. We can all be thankful that we are editing in a subject area of relative peace. Of course, the infobox police have not yet visited the page...

Illustrated
Fine pics.

General criticisms
I have two general criticisms of the article, which are largely a matter of taste:

First, the lead I find to be a bit bland and unfocused. I ask myself: why is this guy important (or maybe he isn't). I think you could add a bit of focus and vigor to the lead by emphasizing Bennett's not insubstantial contributions to British music. Something in the nature of the sentence I wrote to open this review: "the man who was one of the architects of modern music education, a pioneer in the field of arts administration, and considered by many to be Britain's leading composer of the early Romantic period." In particular, there are things Bennett did, that are discussed in the article, which are really important: he saved the RAM from dissolution, and turned it into the premier music school of the empire; he established the profession of music administrator, at a time when the entire music profession in Britain was undergoing a change toward professionalization; he taught a generation of composers who would eventually erase the stigma of Britain being a "land without music".

All these things are mentioned in the lead or in the article, but there is no punch. So the man comes across as being pretty shvakh, as we say in Yiddish - colorless, minor, so what?

Secondly, I think the article could profit from a few paragraphs about the musical and cultural context of early Victorian Britain. Certainly, the article is always referring to this context - for example, there is Squire's backhanded snipe at British audiences: "which an uneducated public admires are absent," and Ehrlich's deprecating remark: "Verdi was in Milan, Wagner in Dresden, Meyerbeer in Paris, Brahms in Vienna, and Liszt in Weimar. London had the richest of audiences, and was offered Sterndale Bennett." But there is no clear statement of the context - the inherent inferiority complex of the British people of the period that they were a "land without music", that all their high culture had to be imported. This cultural context has, I believe, a profound importance for the way Bennett was perceived, the musical and organizational challenges that Bennett faced, and the way he dealt with them. So I would welcome a paragraph about that.

Third, as the article moves past Bennett's youth, I lose a sense of the man's personality. With all the biographical details, I don't have a feeling for what he was like. Was he, as he was as a boy, diffident and modest (his music suggests to me that he was)? Did he have a sense of humor (I think so)? Was he peevish and argumentative (as his feud with Costa suggests), or wimpy and pusillanimous (as his critics suggested)? Perhaps a few more quotes from Bennett himself would sharpen the picture we get of Bennett the man.

And, finally
By the power vested in me by absolutely no one, I hereby grant this article GA status.

--Ravpapa (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

A response
I am very grateful for your very constructive review, and of course for your GA award. There is a lot to think about in your comments, and I will bear them strongly in mind when, in a while, I will seek to upgrade the article further to FA for WSB's bicentenary in April. With thanks, --Smerus (talk) 11:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It's a pity that an otherwise comprehensive and useful review is marred by the snide and snobbish comment, "Of course, the infobox police have not yet visited the page..." This kind of remark does nothing but mar the collegial environment that this article has enjoyed so far. In fact I have previously mentioned that the article would benefit from an infobox, if only because the lead did not mention his place of death or burial - and surely a burial in Westminster Abbey was significant recognition of his stature at the time? My suggestion of an infobox was not taken up - and I did not object to that - but the lead was expanded to include those missing facts that I look for when I assess whether an article would benefit from an infobox. Now that's how collaborative editing should take place, and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth to see constructive efforts smeared by ignorant commentary. --RexxS (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I guess Ravpapa hadn't looked at the peer review; but I confirm that this issue was properly and amicably discussed and resolved on a consensus basis there, and I am confident that consensus approach will continue.


 * As regards some of Ravpapa's general criticisms: I agree the lead needs more 'punch'. There is some restructuring and additional info needed in the main article (e.g. as regards WSB's personality) which can be reflected in a more developed lead and can answer some of Ravpapa's other comments. I'm not sure how much one can go on about the state of English music in the period without overflowing the boundaries of the article - this could need a separate article in itself (? a spin-off from, or a major rewrite in Classical music of the United Kingdom, which is a pretty sparse affair). The notes and citations I prefer to keep separate, as in other GA and FA articles I have worked on.--Smerus (talk) 12:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * --Smerus (talk) 11:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, there's a piece of irresponsible editing for you! Writing a GA review without reading the peer review first! I should be fired. But since nobody hired me in the first place, I guess my sinecure is safe.
 * To the point at hand, I have now read it, and was pleased to see that the infobox issue was resolved so amicably. I have seen other articles where the arguments over infobox-no infobox were so rancorous that the talk page was smeared thick with wikiblood. So I am glad it was dispatched here with such grace, and apologize if editors took umbrage. --Ravpapa (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was churlish of me to pick on one comment - I'm obviously getting too touchy about the subject - and I owe you an apology for that. I should instead have made more of thanking you for your work in producing the GA review. So thank you, sincerely. It seems to me that a peer review ought to be just as much part of the record of discussions on improving an article as anything that's on the talk page, but it's far too easy to miss the small link at the top of the page. Perhaps we ought to think about transcluding peer reviews here, just as we do GA reviews? --RexxS (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Transclusion of peer reviews seems a good idea - is there some way to raise this as a general issue?--Smerus (talk) 11:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was churlish of me to pick on one comment - I'm obviously getting too touchy about the subject - and I owe you an apology for that. I should instead have made more of thanking you for your work in producing the GA review. So thank you, sincerely. It seems to me that a peer review ought to be just as much part of the record of discussions on improving an article as anything that's on the talk page, but it's far too easy to miss the small link at the top of the page. Perhaps we ought to think about transcluding peer reviews here, just as we do GA reviews? --RexxS (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Transclusion of peer reviews seems a good idea - is there some way to raise this as a general issue?--Smerus (talk) 11:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)