Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Sterndale Bennett/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) 12:07, 11 March 2016.

William Sterndale Bennett

 * Nominator(s): Smerus (talk) 10:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the English composer William Sterndale Bennett. Bennett has been underrated as a composer but, as I hope the article shows, he also had a significant influence on musical life in England in the 19th century. I have tried to include in my recent revisions of the article comments made by editors in the article's pre-GA peer review and at its GA review. I hope that it may be a candidate for FA on Bennett's birth bicentenary, 13 April 2016.Smerus (talk) 10:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment from Tim riley: I worked quite a bit on the article back in 2012, and though that was long before Smerus's overhaul began, I think I am nonetheless disqualified from offering my support here. What I think I can conscientiously say is that I have been struck - and much pleased - by the great improvement between the article as I left it and the article as it is now, and propriety or no I venture to give my opinion that the present article meets all the FA criteria.  Tim riley  talk    14:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comments from JM
 * "During this visit he also arranged the first cricket match ever played in Germany, "as fitting a Yorkshireman" as the musicologist Percy M. Young comments." I think we may have different comma philosophies, but this sentence doesn't really work for me.
 * Should "Symphonic Studies" be italicised?
 * Is "Sonata Duo" the name of a composition? Should it be in italics?
 * "The directors of the RAM decided to close it, over the head of Bennett as Principal. Bennett, with the support of the faculty and the students, assumed the Chairmanship of the board of directors." Reference?
 * What was his cause of death? Do we know?
 * I think "as already mentioned" would count as a self reference to avoid
 * It's perhaps a little odd to start a section with "however".
 * The quote beginning "Rejecting the superficial virtuosity" doesn't seem to end
 * I don't think "pianoforte" is as well-known a word as you may think. I'm struggling a bit with the whole sentence. In fact, the whole section could perhaps be ironed out a little- the terminology is a bit alien to me.
 * "is described above" Another self-reference

I really don't know much about the topic, but this seems to be a very strong article. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Many thanks indeed for these helpful comments and for your edits. I think I have now addressed all the issues your raise above, except for the Sonata Duo. That is indeed what WSB called the work. However, as, had it been titled simply either Sonata or Duo, there would have been no requirement for italicization, it is my present feeling, in what is an admittedly an equivocal situation, to leave it unitalicized (unless a storm of protest erupts :-}). Best, --Smerus (talk) 08:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. I think the article looks great- I want to have another look through before supporting, but I suspect I will be. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Cautious support. The article seems very strong, but I am a long way outside of my comfort zone reviewing it! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Sheffield_Parish_Church_1819.jpg needs a US PD tag, as does File:Michael_Costa_(conductor)_-_Rosenthal_1958_after_p96.jpg
 * File:SirWilliamSterndaleBennett.jpg: source link is dead, needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for this. On Commons I have now provided US PD tags as necessary, and given the correct source link for File:SirWilliamSterndaleBennett.jpg --Smerus (talk) 11:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Conditional Support by Lingzhi

 * Very nearly perfect. My largest concern by far is the rather expansive stretches of text cited to Bennett (1907); I'd strongly suggest/request that someone who has this text check for close paraphrase. These things can sneak in against our wishes at times. Nitpicks:
 * The text seems to suggest B. and Schumann hit it off very well from the start, both musically and personally, but later suggests that B. felt a bit uncomfortable with S's music ("He would not have a note of Schumann"). Am I missing something?
 * "although he faced a continuing reluctance of many British music lovers and several leading critics to acknowledge the possibility that an English composer could be of the same stature as a German one" ... perhaps better as "although many British music lovers and several leading critics remained reluctant to acknowledge the possibility that an English composer could be of the same stature as a German one"
 * In the same paragraph, is the informality of "won round" a bit out of place in the formality of surrounding text?
 * "whose book, like that of The May Queen, is by Chorley" IMO completely irrelevant.
 * "In Bennett's 1858 lecture on "The visits of illustrious foreign musicians to England", the latest mention is of Mendelssohn, enabling the likes of Wagner, Hector Berlioz and Giuseppe Verdi to be bypassed, and omitting Franz Liszt and Chopin" ...This sentence niggles at me on three fronts: first, it's odd to my American ear, especially "enabling.. to be bypassed" rather than a straightforward "bypassing" (especially given the resulting parallelism with "omitting"); second, is there some reason why the first three omitted individuals are given a separate verb, suggesting some qualitative or temporal distinction between them; and third, if B is deliberately skipping his "continental contemporaries" then why does he praise Gioacchino Rossini? Perhaps a simple adjective or two describing why the latter found favor might make this easier to understand. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for these useful comments. My feelings are as follows:
 * Bennett (1907). I am very aware of the problems of close paraphrase and can give you my assurance that I have been very concerned to ensure that WP standards are not infringed in this respect. The complete text of the book is available here (page by page) if you nor any other editors wish to check.
 * I think there were always reservations on WSB's side about Schumann's music. In the section 'Style' I mentioned WSB's 1837 comment to Davison that he found Schumann's music 'rather too eccentric'. I have now moved this comment 'up' to the section 'Germany: Mendelssohn and Schumann', so this should now be clearer.
 * although/won round....now copyedited per your suggestions.
 * book - well, I wouldn't say totally irrelevant, but agree pretty irrelevant, and have removed.
 * visitors. I have rephrased this, making it (I hope) clearer. Rossini had retired from opera after 1829, so although he lived on until 1868 he was already history by the time of WSB's lecture. I would infer (although the lecture text does not make explicit) that WSB saw Rossini as being more 'classical' than Verdi, but to enlarge on this would I think be WP:OR. Therefore perhaps better left as it is and let readers draw their own conclusions.
 * With thanks, --Smerus (talk) 11:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

If the former, do please let me know what else might need to be done? Many thanks, --Smerus (talk) 14:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Brianboulton
Support: I reviewed this at WP:PR and was highly satisfied then. I believe it has improved meantime and am happy to sipport its promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Coord note
Source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Source review by Cas Liber
I'll take a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * A couple of sources lack publisher locations (Oxford university press ones)
 * In External links, why do we need a link to the 1911 EB article?

Formatting looks good otherwise.

Using this version of the page for ease of navigation:


 * material of FN 49 is faithful to source without copyvio.
 * strictly speaking FN 77 mentions there is a prize that is (obviously) still current. It does not mention anything about Sterndale Bennett getting money and donating it to fund aforesaid prize....
 * material of FN 78 is faithful to source without copyvio.
 * material of FN 86 is faithful to source without copyvio.
 * material of FN 87 is faithful to source without copyvio.
 * material of FN 115 is faithful to source and attributed appropriately.


 * Earwig's copyvio detector seems pretty clear to me....

Ok so in summary, one tiny thing to fix, otherwise looking ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, Cas Liber.
 * I've deleted the EB link.
 * Places: I've added 'Oxford' to the missing Temperley source, but the Firman source uses Template:Cite ODNB which comes up without place (presumably as it is a web source).
 * Prize. The money collected at the event was used to set up the fund: whether WSB himself donated it is a moot point (although one can infer that he wished it to be used in that way, I find no source making this explicit). So I have reworded and given an additional citation.
 * Hope this may now be OK. Best, --Smerus (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * All in order, squire. :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

- is this OK now do you think? I'm hoping to be able to propose it for WSB's 200th next month - Best, --Smerus (talk) 11:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Great minds -- was just walking through the article myself before promoting... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Having tweaked a couple of things, as is my wont, I'm promoting but there is a harv error coming up with Firman and I couldn't spot an obvious reason why -- perhaps it's that template? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.