Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven)/archive2

Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven)
This is a renomination (old nom). I think all of the previous objections have been addressed. Raul654 10:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * NOTE: Additional discussion from this FAC review has been moved to the Talk page. You can view it here. (Tsavage 18:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC))


 * Support. Reluctantly object as before. None of these seem to have been addressed:
 * (my main objection) the "popular culture section" is toe-curling.  "Eventually, Donald joins Goofy in saving Mickey" adds nothing to my understanding of the symphony; things like this are information about the cartoon, not about the symphony.   The paragraph on The Simpsons and Hitch-hikers is far too geeky, and tells me more about the preferences of the authors than about the subject of the article.
 * I've excised the toe-curling part - the multi-sentence disney description. Raul654 11:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The account of the symphony's influence is lacking. While it's fair enough to say "Every significant symphony since has been written under the influence of this achievement or in reaction against it", the article also specifies that, "the Fifth Symphony ... inspired work by such composers as Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Bruckner, Mahler, and Hector Berlioz".  The obvious question is then: which work(s)?
 * Other than the Hoffmann quote, there's a lack of criticism generally. Specifically, the article lacks an up-to-date equivalent of Hoffmann, whose quote is very much of its time.
 * "The symphony is one of the most often-played orchestral works of its length" is an awkward formulation, and as has been mentioned above, a 70-year old citation is not impressive support for a claim about the symphony's popularity now.  I'd just say "The symphony is one of the most popular in the repertoire", which there's no dispute about and which therefore doesn't need a citation at all. Mark1 10:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * But, to put it simply, that's not an accurate statement. There are tons of less-well-known, shorter works that get played far more often than the 5th because of the difference in length. Raul654 11:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Tons of shorter symphonies which are played far more often? Not where I come from. Mark1 12:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily symphonies, but the replacement you suggested makes no such distinction. Raul654 12:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "The symphony is one of the most popular" means "The symphony is one of the most popular symphonies". ("This man is the fastest" means "This man is the fastest man", not the fastest thing in existence). Anyway, this is a side-issue.  As long as we can agree it's one of the most popular symphonies, I'm sure you can find a way to say it that you don't find ambiguous. Mark1 12:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I switched "most often-played orchestral works of its length" -> "most often-played symphonies" Raul654 18:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 *  Conditional Support I'd say the article is about ready to be featured, it just needs some minor corrections:
 * Under "Notes and references," references 1 & 3 have no link (^) to jump back to the top
 * Look more carefully. Under the new built-in mediawiki citation method, the referneces section is automatically generated. For references that are cited more than once, superscripted notations (1.1 and 1.2, in this case) are used. Raul654 11:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected Mikkerpikker 11:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Under "History/Reception and influence" a quote is cited in Harvard whilst the rest of the article uses footnotes - citation needs to be consistent
 * Done. Raul654 11:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Under "History/The "fate" motif" why is the quote by Anton Schindler first in German and then in English? Just put it in its English form, only a tiny minority of wiki readers will know German. Mikkerpikker 11:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not positive (I didn't put it there), but I believe it gives people who do read german a more accurate representation of what he said; nor does it detract from the article for english speakers. Raul654 11:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, this is something of a minor objection, but I feel the german does detract somewhat from the flow & could be found quite annoying by some readers. And as I've said only a tiny minority of people will benefit from the 'more accurate representation' you refer to. Mikkerpikker 11:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've removed the German passage. Raul654 11:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sigh... object. I really want this article to be featured, but this isn't much different from the last time. The second and third movements still get the shaft, in terms of how much they're described. And even with the more grating sentences removed, the pop culture section is unnecessarily long and rambling. I should find time to work on this article, I guess.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  19:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Since this article is meant to be giving us information about the symphony, the purpose of the pop culture section should be to convey that the symphony has had a wide cultural impact.  That could be much better done with one paragraph on musical references, and one on extra-musical references.   Quotations from Chief Wiggum are not essential. Mark1 20:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Now this is just getting silly (not to mention pedantic). You are arguing that the article would be better by making it less informative, by taking out a recent, well known and rather on-the-mark comment that the symphony is much better known for it's opening notes than the rest of it. Raul654 20:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedias are meant to sift out trivia.  I'll wager Grove does not include musical analysis by cartoon characters in its article on this.  We should also be trying to avoid systemic bias: the Simpsons and THHGTTG are not as important to most people as they are to net geeks. Mark1 20:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've removed the animaniacs, HHGTTG, and Neslon Muntz references (by condensing the pop culture section as a whole), but I kept the Wiggum simpsons because I think it's insightful. Raul654 20:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. I basically agree with RSpeer and with Mark.  The pop culture stuff worked so much better a few weeks ago when it was a separate article.   Why not leave it all in, Animaniacs and everything, so long as it's separate and not harming the main article?  Opus33 22:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Mild object. Needs a good copy-edit, still. In particular, the tiny paragraphs make for a disjointed reading experience, and here are too many slabs of third-party commentary, most of which needs copy-editing itself, or at least tweaking to fit the specific context here. These quotes don't improve the authority of the text, in my view. The description of form, and several other sections, are not 'comprehensive'. Tony 00:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Object This is poorly structured and badly written (so far from a compelling read), and fails to answer many basic questions concerning the topic (not comprehensive). As a quick second nomination, given the number of standing objections from the first time around a couple of weeks ago, I'm quite surprised at seeing this here in largely unchanged form. Specific and actionable objections include (and these are examples only):
 * Poorly written The writing is absolutely uninspired, with variety of problems that occur throughout.
 * Much of it is written practically in point-form About one-third of the text is in single-sentence paragraphs (approx. 20 of 60 paragraphs), making it quite a choppy, unsatisfying read; a PowerPoint presentation comes to mind.
 * Numerous examples of awkward sentences, poor formatting, uneven use of modifiers,... Just a few examples from the various categories:
 * Lacklustre, throwaway statements attempting to substitute for engaging prose and/or actual relevant detail: "Not surprisingly given its fame, the Fifth Symphony has appeared frequently in popular culture", "The work has also been referenced in more humorous ways." "There is another tale concerning the same motif", "at a mammoth concert", "over the course of four years of tumultuous social and political strife", " triumphant and exhilarating finale" (unless "triumphant" and "exhilirating" are musical terms, they come out of nowhere and with no further explanation in the 4th movement section, following extremely dry introductions to the previous three)
 * The initial motif of the symphony has sometimes been credited with symbolic significance as a representation of Fate knocking at the door.
 * But regardless of the merits of these accounts, the motif sets the tone for the entire symphony
 * ''Evaluations of these interpretations tend to be skeptical"
 * The two symphonies appeared on the program numbered in the reverse of the order by which we know them today
 * These examples are almost too numerous to mention. The writing is stiff and stilted, almost clinical (faux-clinical?) way, which makes the simplest statements somewhat grating to read.
 * Sloppy formatting with instances well outside WP convention' There is an inline link to an external site for Simon Schindler, and external references like (according to this source, 1814),  in an article posted here.''
 * An entire paragraph is constructed from an unattributed quote (footnote citation only)": "There is considerable debate among conductors as to the manner of playing these four opening measures. Some take them in strict allegro tempo, like the rest of the movements; others take the liberty of playing them in a much slower and more stately tempo; others again take the three Gs and the Fs 'molto ritardano' arguing that ... the holds over the E-flat and D do (at least tacitly) authorize ritardandos on the three flats and three Fs" [16]


 * Presentation of the topic is uneven and often handicapped by poor sentence and paragraph construction Throughout, ideas and conclusions are expressed in ambiguous and confusing ways; often, the reader is pushed to make connections that are not explicit, possibly incorrect, and not well-supported. Some examples:
 * In 1805, while Napoleon was occupying Vienna, Beethoven interrupted work on the symphony and composed his opera Leonore ... then went back to work on the "C-minor symphony''. At the end of that year, Napoleon and Austria signed a treaty dissolving the Holy Roman Empire, of which Austria had been a part. As a result, the modern Austrian Empire was created. Entirely confusing. First, it is never stated that Beethoven was working in Vienna (was that the case?). Then, the connection between Napoleon's occupation and Beethoven switching projects is entirely unexplained. Finally, what bearing the treaty, the Holy Roman Empire, and the modern Austrian Empire have on Beethoven and his Fifth is...also unexplained.
 * 'The "Premiere" and "Reception and influence" sections are poorly structured, incomplete, and inconsistent with the overall level of detail'- These sections mainly deal with the premiere, which is portrayed in quite some detail as technically poor and without much (critical) impact or even notice. Then, the still unintroduced Hoffman is quoted at rapturous length, about "another performance, a year and a half later"; however, aboslutely no other details of that performance are given. Finally, the sections are wrapped up with a superficial and rapid, one-paragraph summary of the Fifth's influence over the course of over 120 years... (see next point). From the section titles, and the length of these sections in relation to the entire article, it would seem that the premiere (at least, of the Fifth) was a significant and highly noteworthy event (although the text itself contradicts this), while the contribution of all other performances for the next decades need only be summed up in a couple of sentences. This is an extremely sloppy way of saying very little.
 * "Groundbreaking both in terms of its technical and emotional impact, the Fifth Symphony has had a large influence on composers and music critics,[10] and inspired work by such composers as Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Bruckner, Mahler, and Hector Berlioz [11]. 'Every significant symphony since has been written under the influence of this achievement or in reaction against it' [12] The symphony stands with the Third Symphony and Ninth Symphony as the most revolutionary of Beethoven's compositions." These sentences could perhaps fit in the introduction; here, however, they are frustrating in their lack of detail. What was the "technical and emotional impact" impact? Which works by the composers mentioned? Who is being quoted, with such an unequivocal sweeping statement, and why is it in italics unlike other quotes (it seems like an attempt to pound the point home on faith, through aggressive text formatting)? Why is it one of Beethoven's three most influential? (None of this is further developed anywhere in the article.).
 * The "The third movement repeat" and "Reassigning bassoon notes to the horns" sections are disproportinately long - This is interesting, useful content, however, particularly in light of the other problems with balance and writing style, these two relatively long sections focus in proportionately much greater detail than other, seemingly more fundamental aspects of the topic, such as the circumstances around its composition (which is poorly handled in just a couple of sentences), its position within Beethoven's body of work, and more than a cursory discussion of its four movements. These sections should be severely summarized, or the rest of the article appropriately expanded. Otherwise, they further hurt readability and easy assimilation. Writing quality should definitely include proper weighting of the relative importance of various parts.
 * Introduction does not comprehensively summarize the topic' There are fundamental problems with the information that is included and omitted, and with the overall structure, beginning with the very first sentence:
 * "Ludwig van Beethoven's Symphony No. 5 in C Minor, Op. 67 was written in 1804-08." The first, presumably topic sentence of the lead paragraph is rather uninspiring, and puts oddly exclusive focus on the date the Fifth was written.
 * "... one of the most often-played orchestral works of its length [1]" is confusing and awkward, opening up more questions than are ever answered. Is length a common criterion for judging frequence of play? Does the use of individual movements, parts of movements, and even the signature motif not count as being "played"? The use of a footnote citation here is not helpful. Whether this is factual or not, it is a poor construction.
 * "achieved its prodigious reputation soon afterwards." awkward construction and odd usage
 * "At the time, E.T.A. Hoffmann described the symphony as "one of the most important works of the age." The unsupported focus on Hoffman ("the most influential critic of his day", perhaps?) and his pronouncement is confusing (the article link doesn't help, as the lead identifies him as an author and composer). Is Hoffman so well-known and was he so influential, that a simple mention of his name supports in the context of the introduction?
 * short-short-short-long use of single quotes rather than double quotes (if quotes are required at all; the same phrase is unquoted later in the text). Small detail, but indicates to me a lack of basic proper proofreading, especially for a second nomination...
 * "have become very well-known worldwide." limp and somewhat redundant (as its prodigious rep and frequent performance have already been noted).
 * "elements from the symphony have resurfaced numerous times" awkward phrasing; "resurfaced"? from where?
 * Inconsistent choice and omission of summary points: For example, the Fifth's role in pop culture is mentioned in some detail ("disco", "rock and roll"), bit no mention is made of a central aspect like the "fate" association (which is one of the longest sections in the article, longer than that of "Composition"); are any basic details, such as the fact that it is the fifth of his nine symphonies.


 * "The symphony in popular culture" section is particularly poorly conceived and written It is a mish-mash of arbitrary references, with no particular supporting context, and reads like a hasty add on to provide some sort of hook pop hook.
 * There are is at least one factual errors: "Alex DeLarge" was not the character in the novel, the DeLarge is strictly from the film
 * the animation depicts paper butterflies being chased by a storm of darker, evil paper bats" is arbitrary and appears trivial, it doesn't convey the context in the thematic way that examples for A Clockwork Orange or the Simpsons do, much more appropriate to describe Fantasia, or what was actually going on in the scene.
 * with songwriting credits listed as "Walter Murphy / Robin Thicke". descends into an unnecessary and confusing level of detail (what is the thesis here, that the Fifth is morphing its way through popular culture...?)
 * The irony that they were composed by a German was not lost on many of the audience. The closing sentence is a somewhat bizarre way to leave the article (and it's unsupported). The final jump back of this item to WWII is also puzzling.


 * Not comprehensive The renomination statement says "I think all of the previous objections have been addressed", however, my original objections almost all still stand (which makes me wonder whether they are simply being considered "trivial"). In any case, from the original nom.
 * Critical analysis/description not mentioned here: These are all points of fact or discussion that I find interesting. Not having at least these general areas addressed, when they are commonly available elsewhere, is a problem.
 * First movement: We must emphasize that the generating motif of this part also appeared in other works, either in the composer’s creation (sonata Appassionata), either in Mozart or Haydn’s works. (this seems important...especially if the "generating motif" is duh-duh-duh-duuuh).
 * Third movement: This is considered to be the key moment of the entire symphony, both psychologically and from the point of view of the musical construction. (Is this a reasonably widely held scholarly opinion/analysis?)
 * is rightly considered a natural continuation of Symphony No. III, "Eroica", because it approaches the same themes and it expresses the relationship between particular and general.
 * Beethoven's Fifth is also historically important: it established the pattern of what later became known as the "finale symphony", i.e. a symphony whose finale assumes a level of importance at least as great as the other movements, if not greater. (Compare, for example, the Eroica; great as the finale undoubtedly is, it is overshadowed by the first two movements).
 * General information not found:
 * It is of his nine symphonies. (only mentioned in a title in References)
 * The name under which it sometimes circulated, " The Symphony of Destiny ", is linked to the words of Anton Felix Schindler... (A title in the References does refer to this)
 * Until the recent, almost inexplicable, supremacy of Vivaldi's 'The Four Seasons', this was the single most recorded piece of classical music ever. (and even second place is interesting...)
 * No significant historical context - What was Beethoven the man going through during the composition years, both in his personal life (was he rich or poor, who working for, social climate, etc;), and in the overall course of his musical life (what stage was he at in his professional evolution kinda thing). This former seems to inadequately addressed in part with the slightly out of place tumultuous times/Napoleon stuff... Examples on the musical career context side:
 * 1792-1802: Viennese period-Symphonies Nos.1 and 2 are composed in this period. In them, Beethoven innovates within the classical style.l 1803-1815: Heroic period-Symphonies Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are composed in this period. With these symphonies, Beethoven makes revolutionary breaks with classical style; 1820-1826: Late period-This period is dominated by the most revolutionary and influential composition of Beethoven's entire career: Symphony No. 9.
 * Symphony No. 5: The Expressive Ideal Fully Formed. [...] He subjects form to context. He establishes motivic development as a fundamental of his art. He introduces the concept of drama into the formal layout of movements. He introduces the concept of primal, almost rock-and-roll-like rhythm as a narrative element. And he decrees that music must, above all, be self-expression.
 * No notable recordings/performances - there should still be some mention of "important" recordings/performances; particularly with the emphasis given to the "textual question"; much of the article relies on quoted and attributed critical opinion, so it wouldn't be inconsistent to rely on the same for a "recordings" section.


 * I am honestly perplexed by this renomination. There are other concerns on the original FAC that also remain unaddressed. If my comments seem, uh, "overly detailed", it is because here I am somewhat at a loss as to what is expected of FAC. Interpretation of the guidelines is getting fuzzier in my head, especially since the nominator of this one is the FAC Director... In any case, I can provide more examples or clarity as required. --Tsavage 00:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Support I supported it before and I support now for the same reasons. If a Gwen Stefani single can be judged featured material, than this in-depth analysis and evaluation of one of the most recognized musical works in history, is surely equally worthy. What does it say of Wikipedia's reputation as a SERIOUS source of knowledge, that Cool makes it to the Mainpage while Ludwig Van's 5th fails.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 03:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It says that we judge the article, not the music. Mark1 03:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately so in this case... If worthiness of subject matter alone were the criteria, half the wikip'd pop ephemera would be excised, and there would be precious little quality control on the rest.--HasBeen 09:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but I DID judge the article and find it, and not only its subject, to be feature worthy. The burden of proof is not on supporters here, but upon the OBJECTORS who must provide, VALID, ACTIONABLE reasons. So far most of the objections seem to be a laundry list of trivial gripes based on differerences of taste/opinion. Actionable, true, but hardly valid.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. May I chime in to voice my discomfort that Raul is nominating an article himself, alone, in an arena in which he is the final arbiter? Methinks there's a potential conflict of interest in his doing so, and that he should remain at a distance from the process. I'd have been more comfortable if he'd recruited someone else to be the main nominator, perhaps with Raul listed as a secondary 'contributor', or not at all. Perhaps I should have raised this on the discussion page—I don't know. Tony 03:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It's never before been a problem. Raul654 05:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's just that no one's said anything. Tony 07:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think T has a point that is both valid and a little disturbing. If this project is to gain the reputation as a serious source for knowledge, such avenues for abuse should be as tightly controlled as possible, perhaps with a secondary nomination system by randomly selected arbiter in the case where conflict of interest may arise? While this doesn't necessarily invalidate the current application, maybe a point worth taking to the pump? --HasBeen 09:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Support: I don't think Raul nominating a page he has worked on is an "avenue for abuse", having someone else nominate it would be at best plain silly, at worst deceptive. This is a place for discussing the worth of a page, not the integrity of its author or nominator - a nominator, who incidentally, has given no one cause to doubt his integrity.  So lets confine future comment to the article which seems fine to me. Giano | talk 10:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment In my comments about FAC Director as nominator (and as far as I can see, in the related comments above), there is nothing to do with anyone's integrity, it appears a question of guidelines and process. While I obviously understand where you're coming from, this is an inference that it seems you are making, and personalizing doesn't seem helpful. The position and role of FAC Director, on the other hand, is central to the FAC process. Framing nomination, support and objections has to be done within the FA guidelines, therefore, any well-meaning, diligent participant in the process should have a reasonably clear idea of what those guidelines are. With the admirably "open" and consensus-based WP set-up (which happens to be the main reason for my personal involvement in WP), precedents and interpretation of guidelines play a big part in getting one's bearings. When I see certain articles promoted despite objections that seem reasonable and actionable, for reasons that I don't understand (or aren't even available), or when certain FACs which seem to be highly contentious by the FAC voting activity, are still left for weeks beyond the one-week FAC guideline, I naturally would like to find out why, or to discover how I have misinterpreted the guidelines. I don't want to misdirect my energies (and those of others) by doing work here in a way that is not useful, I would obviously much rather be doing things...right. This leads to the FAC Director role, and how the guidelines are in fact realized... When a renomination that seems to me to basically go against the FAC guidelines (and, really, the spirit of FAC), in that I believe clear, civil, actionable objections in good faith should be addressed in kind during a nomination, and certainly before renomination, and then that renomination comes from a nominator who also happens to be the one person in WP who is charged with essentially managing and arbitrating the entire FAC process, does it make sense not to wonder, not to question? Put another way, how do I object here, if my objections have not been addressed from the first FAC nom, when the person who will ultimately rule on consensus here, as FAC Director, has already formally reviewed those objections, as FAC Director, and happens to be the same person who here, as Nominator, states, "I think all of the previous objections have been addressed." I am confused... --Tsavage 17:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm losing the rather long point you are trying to make, I was not addressing you! - I am more concerned about Tony being in discomfort and Hasbeen's "avenues for abuse"   As I said this is a place for discussing the worth of a page, not the integrity of its author or nominator. Giano | talk 20:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize another FAC guideline was, "Speak only when spoken to." In any case, I replied to your post because it directly concerns this article in FAC. I spend time voting on a FAC, and I'd like to see the process followed through properly. You "Support" and then go off about Raul's integrity. The support requirement is: "If you approve of an article, write Support followed by your reasons. Is your reason for support of this FAC your belief in Raul's integrity? Because you haven't said anything else? this is a place for discussing the worth of a page, right? If you're so concerned about FAC, why are you wasting my ("our") time with invalid voting? Or is that another unwritten rule, "Support doesn't really require reasons"...? Jeeze... --Tsavage 21:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm supporting because it's a good article that in my opinion meets all the criteria of a FA. Obviously it's a hornet's nest here so I'll leave you in it to sting away. Giano | talk 22:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks. --Tsavage 23:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The developing nature of the wikip project makes suggestions for improvement only possible when opportunities arrise. Without previously knowing a potential conflict of interest might occur, how are we all to address them if not as they show up? I'm sure the FAC boss is a gent, but it would only take one crook to ruin the project seriously enough to question its integrity in a worst-case scenario. I am a bit doom and gloom, but this is a valid point that could do with more than outright dismissal, seemingly because we don't want to hear it... --HasBeen 10:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Object, still, sorry. It's not a bad article, but I just don't feel this is among the best that Wikipedia has to offer.  I'll just raise a few specific objections.  The article suffers from alarming variations of perspective.  For instance it does not mention important details such as Beethoven's request that the exposition in the first movement and finale be repeated, while it goes into lengthy detail about whether Beethoven would have given a passage to horns if he had access to instruments capable of it (admittedly it's more substantive than the old "Bach would have written all his harpsichord works for the piano" argument - although surely Beethoven was quite innovative enough to ask his horn players to change instruments mid-movement if it had been vital to him, but isn't it just an example of his solving a fairly mundane problem of orchestration? - the discussion of this minor textual question is considerably longer than the analysis of the second movement), and also makes much of the passing similarity of one theme's melodic shape with the opening of the finale of Mozart's G minor symphony even though the two sound completely different (and Beethoven Op. 2 No. 1 opens with a very similar theme; must we say every second-inversion minor key arpeggio with a downward turn at the end written after 1791 is a similar "tribute"?).  There are still some pretty bald statements of opinion: "it stands with 3 and 9 as his most revolutionary compositions": what does revolutionary mean in this context?  Unprecedented?  Shackle-breaking?  Seismically influential?  What about the Diabelli Variations, Missa Solemnis, Piano Concerto No. 4 and 5, Grosse Fuge for string quartet, Hammerklavier Sonata, Sonata Op. 110, to give just a few examples which are surely all arguably at least as revolutionary.   There is no reference to how the work relates to Beethoven's encroaching deafness (I'm fairly sure he wasn't totally deaf until years later).  RobertG &#9836; talk 16:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding the issue of horns or bassoons in the first movement, I don't see why this wouldn't be worthy of mention, considering that Karajan and several others have actually used horns instead--it's not just some random guy's idea that he threw onto Wikipedia. Although I personally do not agree with this artistic decision, it's widespread enough to warrant discussion here. And I hardly think it's too lengthy--the fact that it's longer than the analysis of the second movement should mean that the latter needs to be expanded, not vice versa. Also, why is it of importance to mention that the exposition in movements one and four is repeated in the score? This is the case in almost every symphony and other movement in sonata form in Beethoven's time and earlier, and I don't recall hearing it omitted in a performance. EldKatt (Talk) 19:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I was not arguing that the bassoon/horn issue shouldn't be mentioned, nor that anything should be removed from the article (provided it can be properly referenced); this section's relative length is simply an example of the "alarming variations of perspective" I perceive. I agree with you totally about the remedy.  I am also in total agreement with your comment lower down - this could be featured one day, but there's too much to do to it for it to be featured this time round.  It's not for me to advise our FA director, but I'd be inclined to wait until it has had considerable expansion (which it is my current intention to help with when I get the time to do some research).  As an aside, EldKatt, yes, it's a normal feature of contemporary symphonies, but that in itself is worth saying in a featured article - and are you really lucky enough that you cannot remember a performance where the exposition repeat in the fourth movement was omitted?!  In my estimation it amounts to a cut, and makes me think the conductor has a plane to catch (is POV OK on this page?), but I think its omission is becoming less common.  BTW, I haven't listened to the article's downloadable performance (I don't have the necessary bandwidth at home, nor the necessary equipment elsewhere): does it include both exposition repeats?  --RobertG &#9836; talk 11:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I take back my comment on the exposition repeats. And thinking twice, I have of course heard it omitted, at least in the fourth movement--I don't know how I could not have thought about this yesterday. As luck would have it, the recording in the article adheres to both repeats (though not the scherzo repeat, understandably). EldKatt (Talk) 14:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Moving this chunk of discussion from here to the (hard to find) talk page doesn't seem right. It leaves a false picture of this FAC review. Heated arguments, even shouting matches, are business as usual in open sessions at the highest levels of governments. This happens, this is at times the way people work. If it's not actionable on some procedural basis, so be it...let it stand. It IS part of the record, and the whole discussion didn't come out of the blue, it is based on this being a somewhat unique nomination, a renom by the FAC Director. (I didn't revert it, because I can obviously see that a good deal, though far from all of it, is completely off topic, and I'd rather have this comment read than start another skirmish by simply reverting. But it should be here, where it occurred, as part of the record of the main review. This isn't an article, it shouldn't be edited for cosmetic reasons.) --Tsavage 18:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think for the first time, Tsavage and I may be in agreement. Giano | talk 18:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, too. On a slightly different note, Giano, do you think we could agree to differ and be nice to each other? I'm sorry that you were originally offended by my comments on your article. Tony 02:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Object. There's too much that can be improved. And it will be improved. This can certainly be a featured article at some point, but not yet. I haven't a lot to add to all the other comments. EldKatt (Talk) 19:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)