Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Francis Poulenc/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC).

Francis Poulenc

 * Nominator(s):  Tim riley  talk    21:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Poulenc is the third French composer I’ve put up for FAC, after navigating Fauré and Massenet through the process. He is still, fifteen years after his centenary, too often thought of as a lightweight, and some of his music is indeed deliciously frivolous, but he also had a profoundly serious, religious side, and I hope the current article does him justice on both counts. The article has had an exceptionally thorough peer review here, which included an image review by User:Crisco 1492, as well as top-notch input about the text from an all-star cast of Wikipedians. –  Tim riley  talk    22:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)   Tim riley  talk    21:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Support. I reviewed this article and made copy edits. I believe that it is comprehensive, well researched and well written, giving the reader a clear picture of this composer and his music. I believe that it satisfies the FA criteria and am pleased to support its promotion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your support here, and earlier while I was writing the redraft. I am in your debt.  Tim riley  talk    10:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from TRM: Not much help I'm sure, but I thoroughly enjoyed reading this, it's written nicely and looks comprehensive. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "works included mélodies, solo piano works,..." not keen on the rapid repeat of works.
 * Me neither. This resulted from a redraft at the PR stage, and is now amended.  Tim riley  talk    22:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Our article doesn't capitalise the V of "La voix humaine", any reason you do?
 * I think the capitalisation in our article on La Voix humaine is debatable. Though we'd normally expect a common noun like "voix" to be uncapitalised in a French title, there is no doubt that the composer's practice was to capitalise it (e.g. "Denise et moi redonné La Voix humaine à New York") a practice followed by his biographer Carl Schmidt. Practice varies on the documentation with the available CDs. Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians doesn't capitalise "voix", but from the same publisher The Oxford Dictionary of Music does. On balance I incline to the view that the composer and his principal biographer should be followed. I'll mention the point on the talk page of the opera.  Tim riley  talk    10:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "the two met, his music " just to be certain, I would say "the two met, Auric's music"
 * Better. Done.  Tim riley  talk    10:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "he called "Les Nouveaux Jeunes"[23] " punctuation missing?
 * Indeed. Thank you for spotting that. Now rectified.  Tim riley  talk    10:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Image caption, I thought we typically italicised location, i.e. "Stravinsky (top) ..."
 * I had never thought about italicising, but now you suggest it, it looks rather good.  Tim riley  talk    10:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "leg-Poulenc" - forgive me, is this a play on "leg pulling"?
 * It is, as explained in a footnote for the benefit of non-anglophones. I ran it past two American and one French editors at PR, who gave it the thumbs up.  Tim riley  talk    10:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * " talked a load of rubbish" this is a little colloquial, is it a quote?
 * It is how the English translator of the source book renders it. Poulenc's original French words are given in the footnote.  Tim riley  talk    10:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "served at the front" - be specific here.
 * Done.  Tim riley  talk    10:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "deliciously absurd " again, is this a quote?
 * It is Newman's phrase, but having quoted him in the previous sentence I think it reads better in indirect speech here.  Tim riley  talk    10:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Image caption "The Opéra, Paris" (etc) could this be expanded a little to cover its relevance to the article?
 * Good idea. Truth to tell it's chiefly there to break up the text, and a figleaf of relevance in the caption will be no bad thing.  Tim riley  talk    10:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "short opéra-bouffe of" our article is not hyphenated.
 * Phew. Thank you! Amended.  Tim riley  talk    10:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "the Milanese publisher " Milanese here links to the dialect article, but the article on Casa Ricordi just states that they were based in Milan.
 * Amended.  Tim riley  talk    10:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "In Nichols's words" not sure you've introduced Nichols before this sentence, who he?
 * Done.  Tim riley  talk    10:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As we have accents all over the shop, let's add one to Edith Piaf... Similar for Fevrier and Souzay.
 * Good catches, all. Dealt with.  Tim riley  talk    10:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "who had been Poulenc's only piano student (EMI)" would it be beneficial to the non-expert reader to say, in this first instance "(released on EMI)" or similar?
 * Good idea. Done.  Tim riley  talk    10:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * On the contrary: a lot of help – saving me from several mini-clangers. Thank you very much.  Tim riley  talk    10:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'm happy to support such a comprehensive and well-written article. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Support I was a happy camper at PR, where my minor concerns were met, and my tweaks were unmolested. Happy to support such an excellent article. – SchroCat (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Support: Another happy PR person. I think this is an excellent article that easily meets the criteria, with the qualification that the music section is a little beyond my expertise. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, gents both! Comment from non-specialists is so valuable at PR and FAC: it tells the nominators whether they have made themselves clear. (I have two Poulenc experts from PR who know much more about him than I do, and can comment on my assertions of fact.) Greatly appreciated non-specialist comments and support, meanwhile!   Tim riley  talk    20:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * FN9, 44, 84, 117: which Schmidt?
 * FN10 has a stray period after the title
 * FN28: OED should be italicized
 * Compare FNs 3 and 70 and 162
 * FN90: Times should be italicized
 * No citations to Décollogne
 * Hinson and Romain should include US, but why does Schmidt 2001 include state when the other US locations don't?
 * Is the Bloch in Sources the same as the Bloch in Further reading? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this keen-eyed review. All attended to except for the comment on FN 10, which puzzles me as I can't find a period/full stop in it.  Tim riley  talk    19:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - My comments were addressed at PR. Looks even better now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your support here and for reviewing both text and images at the recent PR. Very much appreciated.  Tim riley  talk    10:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Support: I've nothing significant to add to my comments at peer review (which were considerable). The article is briskly informative, comprehensive, stylishly written – everything in fact that a featured article should be. On an unrelated matter, I am sceptical of the value of the WP custom that adds the phonetical version of a person's name when pronunciation isn't obvious. How many of our readers can actually interpret phonetic spelling? It would make more sense to me if you wrote: (pronounced "Poo-lonk"), but I guess that suggestion won't get many votes! Brianboulton (talk) 13:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Pronunciation respelling key says to do that only for English. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia guidelines are often rubbish. However, I wasn't making a serious point here. Brianboulton (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your earlier comments and your support here. "Poo-lonk" shouldn't get any votes, as, perhaps unexpectedly, it's pronounced "Poo-lank". Nobody loves the IPA but it's the least ghastly option, I think.  Tim riley  talk    18:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * While you're here, Crisco, can I just double check that you're happy with my responses to your image review at the PR? And in particular ought I to replace that church window?  Tim riley  talk    18:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Support: imo you've captured the two sides to Poulenc's personality and musical character, and his place in music history, in a very readable article, outstanding even by FA standards. Just two things:
 * "talked a load of rubbish": fair enough if that's how the translator rendered it, but in that case I think it should be in quotes
 * I had this in direct speech at some stage in my drafting, and can't now remember why I changed it. I'll switch back.  Tim riley  talk    21:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * is it known why he didn't want any of his music played at his funeral? --Stfg (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources don't say, but I'd guess it was a sign of his personal modesty. I think it was Elgar who said that when he contemplated Beethoven's Fifth Symphony he felt like a tinker looking at the Forth Bridge. Something of the same here, I suspect, but I don't really know. Thank you so much for your support, and for your very pleasing comment, above. I shall need a larger size in hats.  Tim riley  talk    21:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Closing comments
 * Since Crisco has participated both at PR and here I'm happy to go with his image review at the former.
 * Quite a few duplinks in the article, Tim, so pls just check for what's really needed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We seem to have established an informal (and no doubt ultra vires) convention for composer Life and Works articles that a single repeat link per mention is OK in the Works part, on the grounds that it is practically a separate article. I hope this is OK.  Tim riley  talk    18:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 13:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.