Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Music for a Time of War/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 10:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC).

Music for a Time of War

 * Nominator(s): Another Believer  ( Talk ) 15:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I have been working on this article for nearly six months and I am so proud to finally be nominating it for Featured article status. I have been upfront about my COI (see article's talk page) from the start, and other contributors have reviewed my work with this in mind. Please see the following timeline: Please see the article's talk page for additional commentary and history. I am happy to address concerns as they arise. If successful, this article would become the second that I have promoted to FA status, following Rufus Does Judy at Carnegie Hall. Thank you so much for taking time to review this article. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * November 1: article start following offline work
 * December: peer review by Brianboulton and Tim Riley
 * February 1: version prior to copy edit from Lfstevens, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors
 * February 4: revisions by Lfstevens
 * February 5: my revisions following copy edit
 * February 11: version prior to Good article nomination (see Talk:Music for a Time of War/GA1)
 * February 20: revisions by Bruce1ee, Good article reviewer
 * February 20: version promoted to Good article status
 * April 3: revisions (by me) since Good article promotion
 * Update: Article now includes alt text. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Another Believer. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If this nomination is successful, then sure, I would request points for the competition. That being said, I am not a very serious participant so the competition is not my primary reason for expanding this article or nominating it for FA status. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Support. I took part in the peer review, and my queries were thoroughly dealt with there. Since then, I see, the article has been further polished, to excellent effect. It seems to me to cover its subject comprehensively and in a well-balanced way. The prose is good and the article is admirably referenced. I don't comment on images (WP's policies being too recondite for me) but as to the text, this article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. The nominator has reason to feel proud of it, if I may say so. – Tim riley (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words, Tim. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Support. As the GA reviewer, I found the article well written and well referenced with a good coverage of the subject. It appears to meet the FA requirements. —Bruce1eetalk 15:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your support, Bruce1ee, and for catching this! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments: I helped to peer review this article last December. I think the article is in generally good shape, but it's a while since I looked at it, so I'd like to read it again, dropping any odd comments on the way. Here are a few relating to the lead:
 * Should the beginning not be: "Music for a Time of War is a 2011 concert program..."?
 * Done. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "On May 12, the Symphony debuted..." Not all your readers will understand that "the Symphony" refers to the orchestra rather than to a work of music.
 * Done. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, same sentence, the meaning is not entirely clear from the wording. I suggest you leave out the irrelevant (to this article) information that this was the orchestra's Carnegie Hall debut, and simplify to: "On May 12, the Symphony repeated the program at the inaugural Spring for Music Festival, at Carnegie Hall".
 * Done. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "In October 2011 the recording was released..." Clarify which recording. You have said that both the Portland concerts were recorded, and I imagine the Carnegie Hall one was, too.
 * What I am trying to say is that the album recording, which was the product of two audio recordings from separate performances in Portland, was released in CD format by PentaTone. Accordingly, I changed the text to: "In October 2011 the recording of the Portland performances was released on CD by Dutch record label PentaTone Classics. The album marked the orchestra's first release in eight years and Kalmar's first with the Oregon Symphony." I hope that is better. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "among other recordings" reads better as "and other recordings" - and best lose the comma preceding the phrase.
 * Done. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

More soon. Brianboulton (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Further comments:
 * Program


 * I am unsure about the tenses in "The program begins...", "the program continues..." etc. These present-tense formulations suggest that the concert is a fixed entity such as an opera or a symphony, when it is not. It is four distinct musical works which happened to form the program for a specific concert which was then repeated twice. I would be inclined to use the past tense when discussing the program, and the present tense when discussing the individual works.
 * Done. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Why are the words "existential" and "ambiguous" in quotes, and how is Ives's work an "existential composition"?
 * I removed the quotes around "existential", and linked the word to Existentialism. I am not sure why the work is considered existential... I am just going by what the source states. I think "ambiguous" should remain in quotes, as this seems more like an opinion than a classification. Please let me know if this concern needs to be addressed further. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you're not sure what the source meant by the term, it's perhaps wise not to include it. Brianboulton (talk) 11:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Nitpicking, but with regard to the Britten piece, the Oregon Symphony premiered the work on February 26, not February 26–28 (unless it was a very long work indeed)
 * Done. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "Approximately 34 minutes in length, it presents three flutes..." Do you think that "presents" is the best word to use here, particularly as you use the word in a different sense at the start of the next section? I think "employs" might be a better alternative in the former instance.
 * Done. I might be wrong, but I believe someone else included the word "presents" (that is not a word I would typically use in this context). -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Performances and broadcasts


 * "The Symphony debuted at Carnegie Hall on May 12,[10] repeating the program at the inaugural Spring for Music Festival..." This is more or less the wording I queried in the lead. Why keep the confusion here?
 * I do think the debut is noteworthy. Accordingly, I have changed the wording to: "On May 12, the Oregon Symphony repeated the program at the inaugural Spring for Music Festival, marking the orchestra's Carnegie Hall debut. The festival invites orchestras..." This is similar to the updated wording in the lead, but also mentions the debut. Again, please let me know if this needs additional work. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's better wording. Brianboulton (talk) 11:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "the inaugural festival presented..." - that word again. And is it necessary to list all these orchestras, whose performances at the festival had nothing to do with the Music in Time of War program?
 * Including the other ensembles provides context. Otherwise, how would readers know who the Oregon Symphony was "competing" against. (I say competing, though the festival was not a competition. Point being, readers should know which other orchestras were participating if we are going to include festival highlights in the reception section.) Also, in this sentence I see no problem with the inclusion of the word "presented". -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I just wondered why the reader needs to know who the Oregon Symphony was competing against, particularly as it wasn't a "competition" – but I won't press the matter. Brianboulton (talk) 11:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I find the various broadcast details a bit confusing; is it all necessary? And I wonder whose wording "their own solemn take" is?
 * Are you requesting removal of "their own somber take"... perhaps remove the quotation and replace with "WQXR's Q2 Music provided their own take on the Oregon Symphony's war-themed concert..."? -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, "sombre" not "solemn". I think your alternative suggestion is better (still finding it hard to follow exactly who broadcast what to whom). Brianboulton (talk) 11:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * See diff. I think the flow is better now, which hopefully eliminates some of the confusion. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Reception


 * "The concert program earned positive reception": I don't like "earned" much; perhaps "received"? And it should be "a positive reception".
 * Done. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Should the caption for Carnegie Hall be changed to "a positive reception" as well? -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think so. Brianboulton (talk) 11:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Second invitation to Spring for Music and cancellation


 * I am wondering what any of the information in this section has to do with the specific subject of this article.
 * Again, I think this section provides additional context. The program earned the Symphony a second invitation to the festival. I assumed the second invitation was worth mentioning if multiple publications did as well. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The invitation is perhaps worth mentioning; it is all the detail that I think is superfluous to this article. The Oregon Symphony wasn't proposing to repeat the "Time of War" program, and in the event didn't go at all; peripheral information diverts attention from the substance of the article. Brianboulton (talk) 11:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps trim down to just the following?: "The orchestra was invited to perform again at the 2013 Spring for Music Festival as one of two returning ensembles. Kalmar said of the return invitation, "To be invited once is a thrill. To be invited twice is clear proof that we are in the artistic big leagues." The New York Times highlighted both returning orchestras when the publication included Spring for Music on its list of anticipated classical music events for 2013. In October 2012 the Symphony announced it would not accept the invitation for financial reasons." This eliminates the proposed program and the bit about the Detroit Symphony. Would you recommend keeping the section heading, or perhaps combining the trimmed down version with the above paragraph (beings with "Elaine")? -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would eliminate the sentence beginning "The New York Times..." to leave you with: ""The orchestra was invited to perform again at the 2013 Spring for Music Festival as one of two returning ensembles. Kalmar said of the return invitation, "To be invited once is a thrill. To be invited twice is clear proof that we are in the artistic big leagues." However, in October 2012 the Symphony announced it was unable to accept the invitation, for financial reasons." Brianboulton (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Should the section heading remain, or should those few sentence be combined with the above paragraph? -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Combine; not worth a separate section. Brianboulton (talk) 10:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

More when I can. Brianboulton (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Final comments
 * Album


 * "through the Dutch record label..." → "by the Dutch record label..."?
 * Done. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "...were the recording engineers mastering" is confusing, especially with a double link. Why not say: "were responsible for the mastering?
 * Somewhere along the way, punctuation was removed. I inserted a semi-colon. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "and authoring was conducted by Jesse Brayman." I have no idea at all what this means.
 * Linked "authoring" to Optical disc authoring. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Who/what is "Soundmirror"?
 * The Boston-based recording company. See the first paragraph of the "Performances and broadcasts" section. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "The Symphony celebrated the release by hosting a party at The Nines."[48][55] Surely this is trivia, not worth including? And double citation???
 * Removed from prose. Added website to EL section. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Reception


 * You should not have two subsections with the same name. You should distinguish them ay "Reception (concert)" and "Reception (album)"
 * Done. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "On November 19, BBC Radio 3's program "CD Review", which discusses and recommends new classical music recordings, included Music for a Time of War." This is not really informative; "included" could mean anything. Do you mean "made positive comments on" or some such?
 * Changed to: "On November 19, BBC Radio 3 reviewed the album on its program "CD Review", which discusses and recommends new classical music recordings." -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "Contributor" to The Huffington Post doesn't allow us to guage the weight of this chap's opinion. Is he a music critic? I would say that he "questioned", rather than "disagreed with" Kalman's claim. And I don't see how the quoted material offers any counter to Kalman's claim.
 * Doing... (But changed to "Brian Horay, a classical music critic for The Huffington Post,..." and changed "disagreed with" to "questioned".) -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In re-reading the article, I think your criticism is of Horay's writing and not my interpretation. Horay "call[s] bullshit", then just after includes the quotation that I provided in the article. I am not sure how to summarize Horay's commentary otherwise. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "Horay later continued..." - "later" is redundant
 * Done. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Overuse of quotation marks, around commonplace words such as "outstanding", "excellent", "subtle" etc. Quotes should be used for striking phrases; everyday terms should be absorbed into your paraphrase.
 * Removed quotes around outstanding, excellent and subtle. I admit to being paranoid about quoting and close paraphrasing, so you might want to point out other instances of unnecessary quotes or make the changes yourself. Thanks. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I won't have time to do this. Now you're aware of the problem, be alert. Brianboulton (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "Alex Ross of The New Yorker included the album on his list of the ten most "exceptional" classical music recordings of the year, offering holiday gift ideas in the process." What have the last seven words to do with anything?
 * The article mentions gift ideas. I am not sure why this mention of gift recommendations is any different from the others in the paragraph. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think one critic's suggestion that the album would make a decent Christmas gift is enough; we don't need to have Ross making the same point (if that is what he is doing - the wording is so vague that I can't be sure). It's an unimportant point, but the wording jars in reading and I don't think the phrase is worth keeping.
 * Removed. Thanks! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

That concludes my review. Please ping when these points are addressed, and I will revisit. Brianboulton (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your incredibly thorough review. I am happy to continue the discussion until all concerns are addressed. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

You have addressed almost all my points satisfactorily, and I appreciate the attention you have given them. The two outstanding are the "included" sentence that I mention above, and the "gifts" point just amplified. In the former case, we need to know what you mean by "included": "included excerpts from"? "included discussion on"? etc. Brianboulton (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops! Sorry, I overlooked the "included" concern. See reply above. Removed the gift phrase, as requested. Thank you, again. -- Another Believer ( Talk )


 * Support: I have given this article quite a lengthy review here, partly to make up for not giving it the necessary time at peer review. All my points are now covered, and I am happy to support the article's promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am honored and feel grateful for your assistance and kind words. Thanks again. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comments -- like to see image and source spotchecks pls. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Is this a request for me, or for other reviewers? -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * For the reviewers or any other editor. I have completed the (satisfactory) spotchecks. Graham Colm (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Spotchecks
 * Article: On May 12, the Oregon Symphony repeated the program at the inaugural Spring for Music Festival, marking the orchestra's Carnegie Hall debut.[10]
 * Source:...including Music for a Time of War on May 7 and 8, the weekend before the Oregon Symphony performs the same concert in New York at its Carnegie Hall debut.
 * Article: The Oregon Symphony first performed the work in February 1959 with Bloomfield conducting; prior to 2011, the ensemble had not performed the symphony since October 2001, with James Judd conducting. Approximately 34 minutes in length, it employs three flutes (one doubling piccolo), three oboes (one doubling English horn), two clarinets, bass clarinet, tenor saxophone, two bassoons, contrabassoon, four horns, two trumpets, three trombones, tuba, timpani, bass drum, cymbals, snare drum, triangle and strings.[3]
 * Source: This is the concert programme, all facts verified
 * Article: Kalmar later confirmed that 450 Oregonians traveled to New York City to witness the performance.[17]
 * Source: Nearly 450 Oregonians traveled to New York to be with us that night.
 * Article: According to the organization, his contract was renewed "in recognition of his significant accomplishments", specifically acknowledging the Carnegie Hall performance.[40]
 * Source: The symphony release said Kalmar’s contract “was renewed in recognition of his significant accomplishments,” and then it mentioned the roaring success of the symphony’s springtime Carnegie Hall concert, with its inventive “Music for a Time of War” program.
 * Article: He complimented Sylvan's diction and "emotional engagement", but noted that some words were difficult to make out. Stabler called the timpanist's performance during Britten's symphony "fierce" and the orchestra's playing "clear and intentional."[1]
 * Source: Sylvan's diction was good, but some words were still hard to hear. His vocal colors and emotional engagement with the text mirrored the music's deep compassion...Grounded by nimble yet fierce playing by principal timpanist Jonathan Greeney, the playing remained clear and intentional as it flew by.
 * Article:  She also confirmed that the Toledo Symphony Orchestra expressed interest in performing the Music for a Time of War program in the future.[14]
 * Source: Calder also noted that the Toledo Symphony has informed her that they will program Music for a Time of War in a future season.
 * No issues. Graham Colm (talk) 18:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 02:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Carnegie_Hall,_NYC.jpg requests in-caption attribution
 * Better? I am not sure I have seen other examples of this on Wikipedia. Must be rare? Please feel free to correct/improve my attempt at providing in-caption attribution. Thanks. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Music_for_a_Time_of_War,_Oregon_Symphony.jpg: FUR needs editing to fix source formatting and reflect that this infobox is not "at the top of the article"
 * I do not know how to do this. Might anyone be able to assist, or teach me so I know for future reference? -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Graham has done the source formatting already. For the FUR, the current text describing the image's location as the "main infobox" is automatically produced by the template. You can override it by copying the text as it currently appears on the description page, hitting "edit", pasting the text in next to "purpose=", and editing out the "top of the article" and other incorrect text. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My attempt to do this resulted in twice the amount of text. What should be removed in order to remove the pre-set information? -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Thank you, Nikkimaria. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * File:CharlesEdwardIves1913.jpg: source link is dead, should include details of first publication (as pre-1923 applies to publication not creation)
 * File:Benjamin_Britten-Karsh.jpg: page number? Also, see PD - images by Karsh can be tricky wrt copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Apologies, but I am not sure how to address any of these concerns. I did not upload any of these images (with the exception of the album cover), nor am I familiar with image policies. If certain images need to be replaced or remove, please let me know or adjust the article accordingly. Again, I am happy to do what is needed to promote the article, but I humbly ask for assistance here so I can learn how to do this in the future. Much appreciated. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the link to the album cover, but I suggest you move the infobox to the top of the article because you have used a per-prepared template for the FUR that cannot be edited without affecting other articles. Otherwise, you will have to write a new FUR from scratch. I don't see a problem in moving it.  I suggest deleting the composite image of the composers. It's causing more problems than it is worth. Graham Colm (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've suggested another possible solution for the FUR above. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you decide to keep the composite, here's what you need to do: first, try to update the source link for Ives - check the source website, Internet Archive, or alternatives to see if you can find the image again. Second, see if you can figure out when/where the image was first published. The source site might have details on that. For the Britten, if you can get access to the source you can find the page number; however, given the dates you've given the image is very likely still under copyright, so a better option would be to sub in a different image of Britten in the composite. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would love to include images of composers, but I am not comfortable completing the above task. Therefore, I have removed the composite image. What a shame. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW, someone is welcome to delete the composite image if it no longer serves a purpose (I can't imagine another article would be able to use the same collage). -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Have a left any reviewers' concerns unresolved? Just checking in since the review has been quiet for a few days. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 06:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 10:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.