Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Discography of Sibelius symphony cycles/archive1


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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC).

Discography of Sibelius symphony cycles

 * Nominator(s): Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Having checked the nominated list against the six FL criteria, I believe it's ready for FLC. As the main editor, I have sought to be neutral and comprehensive in my writing, and the list includes extensive citations. All recording dates, venues, and runtimes are sourced to the CD (or in the case of one or two entries, LP) liner notes, rather than third party websites such as musicbrainz.org, discogs.com, or musicweb-international.com. (I'd like to here acknowledge, and thank, a handful of users over at talkclassical.com, who generously provided me scans of liner notes in their personal collections... in particular, Kiki was extremely helpful.) Moreover, citation templates have been used. I have also made use of the work of Sibelius biographers and musicologists, especially in relating the importance of the Sibelius cycle and the historical play-by-play. Thank you, in advance, for your comments and for having taken the time to give the list a read through. Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley
something that I have struggled to find. As you indicate, the phrase "incomplete cycle" makes very little sense. And yet, "cycle projects that remained incomplete" seems, though most precise, quite laborious. What I know is this: between Karajan, Bernstein, Ormandy, etc. there are a number of notable (oops! we're avoiding that word now) recording projects that encompass 3 or more Sibelius symphonies and, in my opinion, need to be mentioned by this article. Can you perhaps help me brainstorm an alternative to "incomplete cycle"? I'm all ears. Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, I realized you may have been being cheeky... haha, are you just asking me to change the article "the" to the article "an"? Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Cheeky! Moi? But yes, that is just what I meant.  Tim riley  talk   13:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ha! This is my first time every using "cheeky", and I had to look up the term to make sure it wasn't offensive! Okay, well... then I'll merely change the article to "an" (and make sure there are no other "the incomplete cycles" elsewhere in the article). Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The last time anyone called me "cheeky" in Wikipedia was when I suggested that IRCAM in Paris, the home of tuneless composers, stood for I Really Can't Abide Music. Kindly do not mention this to User:Dmass, particularly as fans of Pierre Boulez and a fortiori René Leibowitz seem peculiarly allergic to Sibelius. –  Tim riley  talk   17:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Haha... well you have a fellow traveler in me, then. Don't even get me started on Leibowitz's Sibelius commentary. Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Such a perspective thus conceptualizes Kullervo as Sibelius's de facto "Symphony No. 0" and accordingly expands his completed contributions to the symphonic canon from seven to eight" – here and in the main text: says who? Looks like WP:OR without a citation for the supposed expansion of the canon.
 * ✅. The "Symphony No. 0" turn of phrase is }} from Breitkopf & Härtel's own product description:
 * "By the time Sibelius was celebrating his major international triumphs in the early 20th century, ... The volumes of the Complete Edition edited by Glenda Dawn Goss now offer a musicologically accurate music text for the first time. This music text forms the basis for the performance material. The complete edition 'Jean Sibelius Werke' intends to pave the way for a and, in particular, of this hitherto editorially neglected work, " (emphasis added).
 * So, yes... the conceptualization of Kullervo as the first in a series of completed symphonies by Sibelius is certainly "new", a fact that makes Wikipedia's content on Kullervo about a decade out-of-date (: I am working on an expansion of the Kullervo article at User:Silence of Järvenpää/Kullervo; this article has a subsection under Analysis that addresses the is-it-or-isn't-it-a-symphony back-and-forth.) Nor is Sibelius musicologist Glenda Dawn Goss a lone wolf: as I have tried to demonstrate, many other Sibelius writers (e.g., Tawaststjerna, Rickards, Barnett, Hurwitz, etc.) have called Kullervo a symphony. Is the problem that the citation chain appears after the first sentence of the paragraph but the "Symphony No. 0" phrase appears in the sentence after? If so, should I move the citation chain to after the second? Or is the solution that you would like to see the Breitkopf & Härtel product description cited immediately after the phrase "Symphony No. 0"? Happy to fix how you see fit. Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As long as there is a citation the contention that Kullervo can be seen as Symphony No 0 (which is after all hardly a very contentious contention) that's fine with me.  Tim riley  talk   13:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, then I will add the reference to . Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Precursors: 1930–1951
 * "then in his seventy-fourth year), writing of the septuagenarian conductor" – need we be told a man in his 74th year is a septuagenarian?
 * ✅ Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "the orchestra was credited as the "Royal Philharmonic Orchestra", the musicians were "largely drawn from the London Symphony [Orchestra], which could not be named for contractual reasons" – not according to the LSO's official discography: here" – see note at the end of entry >0139 on page 243.
 * both Tawaststjerna and Layton write that it was the LSO, sneaky style. They hint at contractual issues that prohibited the orchestra from being appropriately identified. Could this also explain why the LSO's own history (which I haven't been able to open on my computer/slow internet) doesn't list the Kajanus No. 1 and No. 2? The Finlandia release (here) lists the ensemble for Nos. 1–2 as "Symphony Orchestra" (playing it safe, I suppose), whereas the Naxos Historical release (here and here) says "Royal Philharmonic Orchestra" on the back cover, but in the liner notes: "London’s Royal Philharmonic Society (the pre-Beecham 'old RPO')". The new release of 'rarities' by Warner Classics (here) calls the group "The Orchestra of the Royal Philharmonic Society", and and earlier re-release by Koch (here) and (here) says "London Symphony Orchestra". Thus, I admit to being perplexed, but as always, tend to trust Tawaststjerna. (: I did just purchase the Warner Classics set, and once it arrives in the mail I can see if the liner notes shed any light for us.) Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "Fifth (22–23 June) symphonies" – 22 to 24 June according to the LSO
 * to the liner notes of the Naxos Historical release: https://www.naxos.com/SharedFiles/pdf/rear/8.111395r.pdf#.Unfortunately, I cannot get the link you sent about the LSO's own records to open on my computer/slow internet. Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "Each of Kajanus's recordings were world premieres – "each" takes a singular verb
 * ✅ Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "prevented these from coming to fruition – a lot of words to say "prevented it".
 * ✅ Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "would knock Schnéevoigt's Sixth from its perch" – rather slangy for the formal prose of an encylopaedia?
 * ✅ Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "According to Robert Layton, Sibelius is said to have referred to Beecham's Sixth as "his favorite recording of any of his symphonies" – did Layton – an English writer, and a good one too – really misspell "favourite" as "favorite"?
 * ✅ Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 04:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "to guest conduct the BBC Symphony Orchestra at Queen's Hall" – it is usual to give the Queen's Hall its definite article
 * ✅ Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Complete cycles
 * "conducted many of Sibelius's symphonies on gramophone" – not normal English usage. "For the gramophone" would be normal
 * ✅ Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "both Metronome … and Decca each began cycles" – either "both" or "each", but not the two of them at once.
 * ✅ Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 04:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "(the U.S. distributor was Epic)" – here and elsewhere you mention American distribution but not that of other countries. Why single out the US?
 * ✅ include the U.S. distributors for a couple of reasons: 1) along with Britain, the U.S. was the biggest market for Sibelius's music; 2) I figured many readers would be more familiar, e.g., with Epic as the distributor for Watanabe I rather than Nippon Columbia... thus, I thought it would be important to signal to them that the Nippon Columbia set was the same as the Epic set (I applied the same logic to the Mercury release of Metronome's Ehrling cycle; and, 3) oftentimes, the British distributor (again, along with the U.S., the most important market) was the original label, e.g., HMV/EMI. Is there a solution that would make you happy? I'm all ears! Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As long as you are happy that you have presented a good global balance, rather than one confined to the US, I have no objections.  Tim riley  talk   23:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am happy, i.e., I think there is global balance due to the natural emphasis on Britain. Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "with Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra" – normal usage would be "the Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra"
 * ✅ Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "43 times across 30 conductors" – unexpected choice of preposition
 * ✅ Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 03:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "ten are Finns" – as some of them are dead "are or were" might be advisable here
 * ✅ Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 03:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Table: entry 30 misspells the recording company's name
 * ✅ Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Complete cycles that include Kullervo
 * "Notably, Kullervo eschews obvious categorization" – we could do without the editorial "notably".
 * ✅ Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Notable incomplete Sibelius cycles: 1952–present
 * Somewhat tendentious title. "Notable" according to whom?
 * ✅ Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "Karajan (then in the employ of Legge's EMI)" – Karajan contracted with EMI to record for that company but was never an employee of Legge or EMI.
 * ✅ Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 03:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "Nos. 4–5, recorded in 1952; and, Tapiola, 1953]" – two things here: "4–5", rather than "4 and 5" looks odd and the comma before Tapiola looks odder.
 * ✅ Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 03:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "other notable incomplete Sibelius cycles" – another unsubstantiated "notable"
 * ✅ Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 03:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "the orchestra he led for over three decades" – a usage best avoided, as in British and Commonwealth usage the leader of the orchestra is the principal violinist (Konzertmeister).
 * ✅ Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 03:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Table: poor old DG is misspelled again in the Bernstein row.
 * ✅ Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Notes
 * Note G: your link to Julius Ruthström takes the reader to a page in Swedish Wikipedia. You shouldn't spring surprises like that on your readers, but should make it clear that it is a cross-Wiki link. One way is like this (from Carnival of the Animals): Charles Turban. I haven't checked, but if there are any other links to non-English Wikipedias you should do likewise for them.
 * ✅ I would like to note, however, that... this request surprised me, because I had previously picked up on other editors switching from the format you requested to the (new?) alternative of, e.g., Petri Sakari . The advantage of this method is that it looks much cleaner and avoids red links, but the obvious disadvantage, as you noted in your review, is that it surprises the reader. I have changed them, but I would be curious to know what the policy is on this according to MOS. Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, well! I may be out of date on the WP policy on this, and would welcome comments from better-informed editors.  Tim riley  talk   22:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note H: "he also recorded the Second two times" – strange English. "Twice" would be normal here.
 * ✅ Silence of Järvenpää (talk)
 * Note J: "comprise" is exactly the wrong verb here: the cycle comprises the programmes, not vice versa.
 * ✅ Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

That seems like a longish list of quibbles, and so let me conclude by saying that this seems to me an impressive article, thoroughly researched and scrupulously cited. I look forward to supporting its elevation to FL. –   Tim riley  talk   09:46, 5 July 2021 (UTC) }} It seems to me that the only quibble left undealt with is the one about the LSO recording dates in 1932, a matter so minor as to be barely discernible with the naked eye. Do sort it out if you can, but I'm not delaying my support on that account. So, I'm adding my support for the elevation of this article to FL. It seems to me to meet all the criteria, and I found it a pleasure to read and to review. A first rate piece of work, in my view.  Tim riley  talk   13:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Tim. I have long admired your work on the English/British classical music scene; indeed, their quality is what encouraged me to, when I have time, work hard on the Sibelius/Finland classical articles. Glad you enjoyed this one and found it a good read. Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from ChrisTheDude

 * Works for me - support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

 * All column headers need colscopes (e.g. `! style="width:11em"; rowspan=2 | Conductor` should be `! style="width:11em"; rowspan=2 scope=col | Conductor`), including the "secondary" column headers (runtimes 1, 2, etc.). This, combined with the rowscopes you already have, lets non-visual screen reader software accurately read out what cells go with what columns.
 * Sorry, I learn by example and am not that great at the technical elements of Wikipedia code. Would you be kind enough to help me? Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Basically, whenever you define a column you should include a "scope=col" in the code, so in your case it would be (in full) "! style="width:11em"; rowspan=2 scope=col | Conductor". Check out what I did here and try to replicate it for the other tables. This is one of those new accessibility things we've been trying to incorporate
 * Done I have addressed this in these edits.  Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Tables need captions- e.g. at the top of the table code put `|+ table_caption_text`. If this text would duplicate a nearby section header, you can hide it from visual browsers like |+ . This allows non-visual screen reader software to jump straight to a named table without having to read out all the text above it to find it. -- Pres  N  16:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I learn by example and am not that great at the technical elements of Wikipedia code. Would you be kind enough to help me? Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Have added these myself, no worries! Aza24 (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Done I have addressed this in these edits.  Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review – Pass
Well I already looked at the sources when we were discussing at my talk page, but let's see what I find now...! Aza24 (talk) 21:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Version reviewed:


 * Formatting
 * Generally page ranges are "pp." and single pages are "p." this is by no means required, but is the standard, if you are so inclined
 * Done Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The linear notes look fine, there is a lot so hopefully I didn't miss any inconsistencies....


 * Reliability
 * No issues, great sourcing!


 * Verifiability
 * Refs 32, 117, 119 and 127 aren't connecting to their respective Sources (check for typos or incorrect years and then make sure they connect when you hover over them)
 * Done 3 of 4 Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ewen and Goss could do with an identifier or some sort, ISBN or OCLC maybe? Aza24 (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Added OCLC Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@ Thanks for the source review. I have fixed almost everything, and added missing sources for the Sfns with harv error (which were difficult to find, give that I know very less about this list). 3 of the 4 errors are now resolved, but I'm not able to find the source for the remaining one (Ref#117). Should I just remove it as the same info could be verified by other given sources too. Please suggest. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for stepping in here . I'm not sure where Silence of Järvenpää has gone, but they were awfully excited about this list, so it would be a shame to see all this work fail FLC. I'm thinking the ref in question is for this publication, would you concur? Aza24 (talk) 05:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @ Thanks for the link, but it appears that I have used the same booklet for Ref#32, which too appears to refer to this one. Are both the references same.... Silence of Järvenpää has made around 10 edits in last 30 days. Indeed this is an excellent list, and I want it to pass the nomination.  Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it must be to the same score, especially per the roman numerals in the preface, presumably SoJ accidentally cited it differently. The information for ref 32 also seems to be cited on page xi. Does that seems sound? On another note, I'm going to attempt to combine some of refs in a row to one to hopefully help things move along. Aza24 (talk) 06:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have merged both the short footnotes. Hopefully, that addresses all the comments of the source review. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@ Just a courtesy ping the previous concerns were resolved. Is the source review passed? Thanks! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Definitely, splendid work. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 06:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

 * "Sibelius cycle" no idea why "cycle" has to be in italics here.
 * ✅ Removed. Silence of Järvenpää (talk)


 * Also no really good reason to bold the symphonies.
 * ✅ Removed. Silence of Järvenpää (talk)


 * "in the U.S.)." I would say United States to avoid that awkward full stop/parenthesis/full stop construction.
 * ✅ 3/3 U.S. changed to United States. Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 00:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * 43rd : The ordinal suffix (e.g., th) is not superscripted.
 * ✅ Removed 1/1 instances found. Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Our article calls him Neeme Järvi.
 * Not sure what you mean here. I see Neeme in the article referenced as Neeme. Is it perhaps that you saw Paavo Järvi, his son, and thought it was an error? Clarification welcome! Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 00:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This appears to have been Done Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * "gesture... " see MOS:ELLIPSIS, non-breaking space before the ellipsis in this case. Check all other instances.
 * ✅ 5/5 instances changed. Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 00:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * "runtime [m]" no spaces between headings and footnotes.
 * ✅ Removed Silence of Järvenpää (talk)

A prodigious piece of work. Just a few points above. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "Select incomplete Sibelius cycles:" does that mean that it's an incomplete list?
 * Why two runtimes (32:28, 30:46)?
 * @ can you please clarify the above two points. I have taken care of rest all of the issues.  Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It appears to me (per the source) that Karajan did two different recordings of Symphony 5, thats why 2 runtimes. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ref 4 pp.
 * Done Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * In fact, check all multiple page sources are using pp. not p.
 * Done Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "Sibelius: Symphonies Nos. 1-7 " should be en-dash.
 * Done Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * " OCLC ????" is there any point to this?
 * No, removed. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you going to respond to the other comments? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @ The nominator is not very active on Wikipedia since last month, so I have addressed all your remaining comments, except one about incomplete list, which I'm not sure. Do you have any further comments?  Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @ Just a courtesy ping for any follow-ups. The nominator has no edits since late August. I have made almost all the remaining changes.  Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Fixed some minor table formatting issues, and addressed the "incomplete list" comment- the section has a form inclusion criteria (a conductor who recorded 3+ parts with the same orchestra (but not all 7)), but it was buried in a note instead of in the text. I've made it more prominent. With that, I think we're good to promote. -- Pres N  14:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.