Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Piano Concerto No. 24 (Mozart)/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) 10:31, 21 February 2017.

Piano Concerto No. 24 (Mozart)

 * Nominator(s): Syek88 (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is about one of Mozart's late piano concertos. It became a Good Article a while ago, thanks to a review conducted by Tim Riley. I encourage anyone who is not familiar with the work to listen to it while reading the article! Syek88 (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Image review

 * File:August_Gerasch_Vor_dem_alten_Burgtheater.jpg needs a US PD tag
 * This has been done, I believe. Syek88 (talk) 10:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The tags and description on the excerpts should reflect the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have amended the licensing tags for the three score excerpts on Wikipedia Commons to reflect the copyright status of Mozart's original work (out-of-copyright, obviously). I hope this is what you meant.

Comments by Nick-D
This article is in very good shape, and I'm glad that I took your advice to listen to the music as I read it. I have only the follwing comments
 * Not sure what the norms/guidelines are for FAs on classical music, but does "The concerto is divided into the following three movements..." need a reference?
 * I am not sure that there are norms or guidelines. I have added a reference in any event.


 * "there is a very simple four-measure bridge passage that Girdlestone calls to be ornamented by the soloist, arguing that "to play it as printed is to betray the memory of Mozart"" - why is not deviating from the score a betrayal? Is it due to an obvious flaw in the surviving original of the score, etc?
 * I have expanded upon Girdlestone's quote: he says that the passage as written by Mozart is a "sketch". Girdlestone's talk about betraying the memory of Mozart is probably a reference to Mozart being known as a performer who improvised a lot - not to improvise his own compositions, especially when they are mere "sketches" - would thus betray his memory. But I'm reading into Girdlestone's mind there.


 * I have to confess that I couldn't follow the technical language in the sections on the three movements, but the quotes from various musicians and experts helped to explain it. Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was mindful of trying to have enough technical language for those who could understand it, while also not making it impenetrable. I am most grateful for your comments, thank you. Syek88 (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Support Those changes address my comments, and I'm pleased to support this nomination: great work. Nick-D (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Support from Sarastro1
Support (recusing as coordinator on this one): I've read this a couple of times now, and I can find little to grumble about. I can just about hang on to the musical sections and have a reasonable idea what is going on. There might be things in there I've missed, so I'd really like a musical specialist to have a look as well. With that qualification, it looks good to me from a prose point of view and seems very comprehensive. I think it does what a lot of work about Mozart doesn't do, which is to explain what made him different. Good work. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review! I am glad that is what you took from the article. I will mention at the Classical Music Wikiproject your request for a musical specialist. Tim Riley conducted the Good Article review but I understand that he is no longer on Wikipedia. Syek88 (talk) 06:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Icebob99
Oppose for now: shouldn't a discussion of significant discography be appropriate in this article? Discography is very important to how the work is viewed by the public (which thus puts it in the scope of an encyclopedia article) because it's often the only way that people can actually listen to it, and thus it is important to know which prominent artists have recorded it (and to know their respective styles as well).
 * I don't think so. The piece has been recorded probably around 200 times. There has been no study of those recordings as a whole. How do I pick which recordings to highlight? How do I decide who is a "prominent artist"? And how do I describe their "style". Everyone will have different opinions. Arguments will develop about which recordings to highlight. There is no objective overview of them all upon which we can rely to settle all of these questions. Moreover, any such overview would become quickly out of date.
 * If a piece has been recorded on only a handful of occasions, it is possible to mention them all in a short discography section. But for the more popular works, like this one, neither a full list nor a necessarily subjective selection is appropriate.
 * I should add that it appears from your contributions that you put all of four minutes of thought into this oppose vote. It is not clear whether you have read the article. You did not even sign your vote. Perhaps think more carefully about opposing things into which other editors have put massive amounts of effort, and about grounding an oppose not in an objective assessment of the article's merits but a personal view about what the article should do. Chances are that the editor who has put weeks of effort into the article has already thought in detail about the issue and has a compelling answer to your question. Syek88 (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, before I address your concerns, I would like for you to assume good faith. Even if what you say is true (which I respectfully differ upon), that doesn't have any effect on whether my issues are actionable or not.


 * In regard to your responses: I found an example which I liked at Symphony No. 9 (Beethoven). I understand that that article is a C class article, but that doesn't mean the section isn't a good example of what I'm suggesting here. For examples in current featured articles, see Messiah (Handel), Lieutenant Kijé (Prokofiev), Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten! BWV 172, or Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria. In fact, I haven't yet found a classical music featured article that doesn't have a discography section (although I haven't checked every single one).


 * I think the gist of your answer was that we can't include a discography section because there hasn't been a high-level academic study on the piano concerto (that we can find, at least; one probably does exist hidden away in a library somewhere). Luckily, though, we aren't limited to DMA dissertations or the like, since we can objectively detail major recordings or recording projects as long as the source is reliable and independent. I'll concede the point on artist style; what I meant was that if a formal study existed (this is where a dissertation would come in handy) and it happened to detail that an artist played the concerto in a style such as period or modern, that would be included in a comprehensive overview that FA entails. I also agree that prominent artists are very subjective; obviously, we can't list every single recording, but we can choose recordings that have received significant coverage themselves from respected sources, like a music review or highlight on a music website. Here's an example from WQXR, one of the best-recognized classical radio stations. The example details a recording which contains the 24th that WQXR (an independent, reliable, and respected source) thinks is important. Another good example is.


 * I'm not sure I understand your response about how a handful should be covered but not a large amount—wouldn't a large amount demand more coverage (to be comprehensive) than a small amount? If the issue is that a comprehensive discussion of the discography would be too long, we could always do something like Beethoven Symphony No. 3 discography or Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria discography, but that would also mean having a section of reasonable length in this article.


 * If you want, I can help you write this section. I'm sorry that you found my oppose !vote to be agitating enough that you lashed out at me. Yes, it took me four minutes to decide upon and craft the oppose since lack of discography was a immediate oppose for me, but I would have spent four hours if I knew that I had to provide all this material up front. Let me know if you have any other concerns with my oppose !vote; I'll be happy to strike it and !vote support once the actionable issue is addressed. Icebob99 (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Beethoven's 9th is a terrible example. It illustrates precisely the points I made to you two days ago. Why are Bernstein and Solti highlighted but Karajan not? The answer is that someone on Wikipedia has decided that Bernstein and Solti are worth mentioning but that Karajan isn't. It's a bad decision brought about by the fact that the section of the article is not based on an independent review of recordings. Additionally, what does the fact that Bernstein and Solti recorded the symphony even tell us? The answer is "absolutely nothing". It is irrelevant to the symphony itself. Even so, what sets Beethoven's 9th and Handel's Messiah apart is their iconic status. The history of recordings of those works is well document. K. 491 isn't in that category. The phantom library paper you bizarrely mention does not exist. The WQXR "20 essential Mozart recordings" is singularly unhelpful: over my dead body will you have me include that as a reference in the article, and over my dead body will I accept the request to "help write" a discography section that has no place in the article. I'm sorry but at this point, continuing to reply to your oppose is starting to become bad for my blood pressure. I'm not going to lower the standard of a 100% academically sourced article with a meaningless and subjective discography. It won't happen and I can only hope that whoever decides upon the fate of the article recognises your oppose as the groundless four-minute job that it is. Syek88 (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, please remain civil. We're trying to help improve this article so it can be a featured article, and we can only do that together when we maintain an attitude of respect and cooperation.


 * Regarding the Beethoven example: I chose that one because I liked how it laid out the format, not necessarily the content. If you think its content is lacking, find a source and add the info about Karajan. I disagree about how only articles about iconic works should have discography sections. Two other featured article examples I listed above were Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten! BWV 172 and Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria. Both are about as recognized (in my experience) as this piano concerto, and none of those are iconic in the way of Beethoven 9 or Messiah.


 * I think we can avoid the threat of a biased section by listing the relevant literature of reliable and independent sources. I listed a couple examples of those above. You don't have to use WQXR if you don't like it, I listed it because it's reliable and independent. We can also avoid the problem of editorial bias by simply listing every notable recording (which might deserve its own article at that point, see the Beethoven Symphony No. 3 example I gave above), but I think that would be an unnecessary amount of effort.


 * I hope you'll take the time to work with me on this. I think I've put forward a legitimate concern, and we would all benefit from responding civilly at the very least. I had to take a few deep breaths too, nothing wrong with doing so. Cheers, Icebob99 (talk) 01:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not doing it. No other reviewer has made this suggestion, and in that I include the highly experienced classical music specialist who conducted the Good Article review. I have explained why I don't think a discography section has any place in this article and have nothing further to add. Syek88 (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Coord note: Having checked over several classical music FAs, it appears to me that discographies are not standard, although some articles certainly include them. Based on this I think it has to come down to the consensus of reviewers here as to whether this particular article should include one, and we don't appear to have such consensus. That said, I see no evidence of bad faith in this opposing commentary, and I strongly recommend to the nominator that they treat dissenting voices at article reviews more cordially, even if they disagree with them. Most nominators at FAC put many hours into their work, and still they will not consider everything, which is why we have reviewers. Mutual respect between the parties, each of whom is vital to the FAC process, shouldn't be that difficult. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Support from Graham Beards
Support - a thoroughly researched and well written article. Should "due to Mozart notating" be "due to Mozart's notating"? I agree that input from another specialist would be useful; my knowledge is limited to relative majors and their minors. Graham Beards (talk) 11:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Graham. I have changed the sentence in which those words appear, and they appear no longer. Syek88 (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Gerda
Thank you for a great article! Only minor concerns:

Infobox
 * How about W. A. Mozart, as a little tribute to his own writing of his name (Wolfgango Amadeo in Italy, Wolfgangus Amadeus in the C minor mass, and preferedly Wolfgang Amadé)?
 * We are asked to keep them concise, - the genre is clear from the title, and IF mentioning Style, better Classical period, because many readers may understand Classical music.
 * I have made both of these changes.

Lead
 * There's a lot of information in the opening sentence, - can we get to Mozart sooner, and to the pianoforte later, perhaps in a second sentence?
 * I have made this change.


 * Mention that Mozart played and conducted himself, perhaps also mention him improvising?
 * I am not convinced that this is a sufficiently significant detail for the opening paragraphs. It says more about Mozart and contemporary performance style than it does about K. 491: a good detail for the lengthy part of the article but perhaps not for the brief summary?


 * Piano Concerto No. 23 (K. 488) in A major - that's again a lot. We have a link, - no surprise that #23 came before #24, the K# hardly relevant when we want to know about the C minor piece ;) - my suggestion: Piano Concerto in A major. Same for D minor, and other concertos mentioned later.
 * I have removed the Köchel numbers in every case and the reference to "No. X" where chronological relationship to K. 491 is clear from the surrounding circumstances.

Background
 * premiere of The Marriage of Figaro? No, Le nozze di figaro was premiered. That's an opera with dark sides: la contessa missing the love of her husband, Barbarina singing in F minor that she lost something (which may hae been more than a needle), figaro's jealousy, etc.
 * On the first point, wikipedia's own article is Marriage of Figaro. As this is an English-language article and an English-language website, it seems sensible to use English but also to be internally consistent. On the second point, Figaro being a sunny major-key opera is straight from the academic source, so I am confident in repeating it. I also think it is correct: the one or two minor-key numbers do not fundamentally change the nature of the opera as comic, good-hearted, 95% major-key, and with a happy ending.


 * While I find the complete listing of number, K# and key too much, "the No. 24" seems too short. How about the concerto in A major? I'd relate to a key = mood more than just a number.
 * But "No. 24" is this concerto -- the C minor one. I'd usually use "K. 491" as a shorthand, but we can't do that. Calling it the "C minor concerto" would be too much as it's the very concerto in the title of the article, so the shorter the better.

Overview
 * In Bach cantata articles, that section is called Structure and scoring, and comes with a table for the movements, - take a look at BWV 125.
 * I think that works for a five or six-movement work, but not a three-movement work. A table for a three-movement work might be distracting and overkill for the limited amount of information it will contain.


 * link 3/4 time?
 * I've linked to Time signature


 * "cut common time" was no familiar term to me, but the link helps.
 * flute is a broad article on the family, perhaps Western concert flute would be better?
 * I have done this.


 * clarinets: perhaps worth finding out when Mozart (and others) began using clarinets at all which were regarded as folk music instruments before
 * I think the answer is that it was just one of a great many instruments developed in the 18th century and, unlike most, it succeeded. Anyway, I have added this sentence: "The clarinet was not at the time a conventional orchestral instrument." The sentence is grounded in Clarinet. That should be sufficient to explain to the reader that it was the clarinet, not the flute, which Mozart was bringing into the orchestra in his late career.


 * How about a few words about the sound of a fortepiano, for readers who are not familiar with the term? Yes, we have a link, but ... Music is sound, not only structure ;)
 * I have done this.

Recapitulation, cadenza and coda
 * Consider ending on "the final pianissimo chords". The following sentence adds nothing to this great ending ;)
 * Yes, I like this change and have made it. Thank you.

I will look at the rest later, perhaps tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Back:

Second movement
 * In "This was not always the case: Mozart's first sketch of the movement was much more complex.", I'd be happier without "This was not always the case:".
 * I have removed these words.


 * Not sure I know what "bridge passage" means, probably "Überleitung" in German?
 * I have changed to "bridge or transitional passage". The adjective transitional might be more descriptive.


 * Can we avoid the repetition of A-flat major in two consecutive phrases? Link the new key? (and new keys later)?
 * I have done this on both counts.


 * "The use of a recurring principal theme ("A", in E-flat major) and two secondary sections ("B", in C minor, and "C", in A-flat major) makes the movement characterisable as being in rondo form.", - many words about ABACA being rondo form, - not sure it's needed at this point.
 * I have shortened this considerably - I agree it was too wordy.


 * "Brendel further argues that the time signature for the whole movement is a notational error", - how about "another notational error"? - That tempo reflection deserves a bit more explanation to be clear.
 * I have done this on both counts, the second by referring to cut common time as requiring two beats per bar rather than four.

Third movement
 * "C-minor theme"? "C minor-theme"? "C-minor-theme"? "theme in C minor"?
 * I have changed it to: "The third movement features a theme in C minor followed by eight variations upon it."
 * Are the Roman numerals for the variations from the score? Readers might be served better by normal numbers, but I understand at least the French use Roman numbers for movements.
 * The roman numerals are the most common form of academic reference. I think it works here to distinguish variation numbers from movement and other numbers.


 * "Variations II to VI are what Girdlestone and Hutchings separately describe as "double" variations." - How about "independently" instead of "separately"?
 * I have made this change.


 * The refs after that should be in ascending order.
 * I have made this change.


 * Aren't there musicologists who found better descriptions (for IV-I) than "cheerful", "graceful" and "the most moving"? All very general, not really worth quoting.
 * I thought the quotes would help convey the effect Mozart created by throwing two major variations into the mix to surround a minor-key variation. To the non-musically literate, those quotes say more than the keys do. I appreciate that for the musically literate they are superfluous, but we have to strike a balance for both kinds of reader.


 * "Variation VII is half the length of the preceding variations, as it omits the repeat of each eight-measure phrase." Is that a different meaning from "Variation VII is half the length of the preceding variations, as it omits the repeats."?
 * I don't think we can do this because they are not "repeats" as such, with :||. Instead, the phrase is often written out a second time, with changes. So the phrase is "repeated" but there is no "repeat".


 * "(which, in C minor, are composed of F, A-flat and D-flat)" holds up the flow, is boring for those who know, and difficult for those who don't. We have a link. I'd drop it.
 * I have done this.


 * "[w]e shall never be able to do anything like that." - can we have the German original also, at least in a footnote, as the source is offline? What does it mean that part of a word in the quote is in brackets?
 * I am struggling to find the German original for this. The brackets are just a decapitalisation from "We" to "we".


 * "encouraging Clara Schumann to play it and writing his own cadenza for the first movement." - how about "writing his own cadenza for the first movement and encouraging Clara Schumann to play it.", - to avoid interpreting that Clara wrote the cadenza.
 * I have changed this sentence to clarify.


 * Again, can we have the German original for "masterpiece of art and full of inspired ideas." I would not know how to say that in German.
 * I have traced, found, and included the German original. The translation is Eric Wen's.


 * "Musicologist Simon P. Keefe ... writes that the No. 24" - why an article for the number, but not "The musicologist"?
 * I have made this change.

Great music, thank you again for covering it in depth. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for these comments. I hope I have either addressed all of them or explained why not. Perhaps the one thing I can't do satisfactorily is chase the German original for the Beethoven quote. I think that will take me some time and one or two library visits. I promise at least to make those library visits, but if is not essential for this article to be an FA, perhaps I can be cheeky and ask for a little time? Syek88 (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your changes, and for the detailed explanations. I think it's FA quality, with or without Beethoven, but hope of course that you will keep searching. I cheerfully support, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I looked again, and wonder if we might have a better lead image than the overly well known posthumous portrait of the composer, - something more specific to the piece, perhaps a period fortepiano? We don't have an image of Bach in the lead of his compositions, better something he wrote, compare Mass in B minor. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll have a think about it. I'm certainly open to the idea of a fortepiano (despite my preference for modern instruments!), and I too don't think the Mozart image is ideal, although I have to be sure I get the right fortepiano lest the period instrument crowd get offended... Syek88 (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Switched image for File:FortepianoJAStein.JPG. Closest to the period we have on Wikipedia. Feel free to change again — Iadmc  ♫ talk  20:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I like it. Next, we need a precise caption, and also an "alt", an alternate description to tell people who can't see the image what they would see, - for all images, please. For examples look at any established FA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Support from Iadmc
The article meets all the Featured article criteria. Minor quibbles on style: "hitherto" is a little old fashioned these days, IMO; "This amounts to the largest orchestra for which Mozart composed any of his concertos" could be better written as "This is largest orchestra for which Mozart composed any of his concertos". Other than that, great article! Hope to see it on the front page very soon — Iadmc  ♫ talk  21:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your comments and support. I have made both of those changes. Syek88 (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Great. It should pass no problem — Iadmc  ♫ talk  19:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Outstanding checks

 * Unless I missed it above, we'll need a source review for formatting and reliability.
 * Also I gather this is the nominator's first FAC, in which case I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing, a hoop we ask all first-timers to jump through. Both checks can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Ian. I have requested both checks. Syek88 (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Source review and spot checks

 * Sources fine for reliability and formatting.
 * Ref 8 is currently dead.
 * Spot checks of the available online references (3, 6, 7, 38) reveal no problems. I suppose we could look at some of the print sources (which I don't have access) but I don't think any further spot-checks are required based on what I found. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Sarastro. I have substituted the dead link in Reference 8 for an archived link. Syek88 (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 10:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.