Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Romantic composers

List of Romantic composers
Previous nomination: Featured list candidates/List of Romantic composers/archive1

This was nominated back in July. It now has refernces, inline citations, and a better lead section. Much better than last time. Nominate and Support! Dafoeberezin3494 18:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose The references cited are not especially strong: the main reference being : Machlis, Joseph and Forney, Kristine. The Enjoyment of Music: Seventh Edition, W.W. Norton & Company, 1995. Surely there is a better reference for this period. Even the New Grove would be better!
 * The catagorization is not consistent: for example : Charles-Marie Widor (1844-1937) is middle romantic, while Vincent d'Indy (1851-1931) is late romantic? Vincenzo Bellini, Mikhail Glinka, Ambroise Thomas and Jacques Offenbach are in the same "catagory" of "Early Romantic composers"?  On what basis is this judgement made?  This "list" needs a complete reconception and much better sources to be "featured".Musikfabrik 22:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose I don't know anything about composers. I'm a puzzled why there is a difference between the set of composers in the category and the set in the list. In what way is a "standard reportoire"  and why is that web site authoritative? The web site says "Basic Repertoire List", which to me implies it is incomplete in some way.
 * The birth/death dates should use an en dash (–). See Manual of Style (dashes).
 * Why are some years wikified and some not? I can't see the point in wikifying them but don't know if the MOS has a rule here.
 * The date range should have a full stop afterwards, since you are beginning a new sentence. Most entries begin with a capital letter, but not all. Be consistent. Every entry should end with a full stop.
 * A common style seems to be "Xxxish composer and virtuoso yyyist". Awkward exceptions include Ludwig van Beethoven (the first entry) and Johann Nepomuk Hummel.
 * If you are going to add the instrument they played, do it for everyone that you can.
 * Many entries give an opinion. I think that saying someone is famous for a certain piece is fair enough. But saying someone is the "father of ...", "one of the most popular", "one of the most significant", "probably the most significant", etc is too much without a source to back you up.
 * The pieces should be consistently italicised and more can be wikilinked.
 * Why is this list in the category "Romantic composers" – it isn't a composer? Colin°Talk 22:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The dates are now de-wikified and use en dashes. Dafoeberezin3494 03:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I was attempting to emulate the List of major opera composers. They have a list there that is smaller than the corresponding category, but is much more helpful and much easier to navigate.  With this list I was attempting to do the same thing by introducing an outside source that seemed to know what they were talking about.  Before that this list was over 200 composers and difficult to navigate.  I wasn't intending to make that an "authority" on the subject, just to make the list easier to read.  I think it would help if someone introduced more similar sources of "prominent" composers.  Maybe this "New Grove" that User:Musikfabrik keeps talking about has something like that in it.
 * By the way, I'm becoming concerned about User:Musikfabrik. In two days he has made major edits to about five pages that I have significantly contributed to.  He reported me to the Music Portal complaining about my edits.  And I find it hard to believe that he knows about The Enjoyment of Music; I only posted this nomination about three hours ago!  I don't know if he rushed out to the library and checked it out in that amount of time, but it seems that he is tracking me and attempting to revert my edits.  I'm not sure if this violates Etiquette, but if someone could help me out that would be appreciated.  Thank you. Dafoeberezin3494 23:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It's funny you should mention Etiquette, as the first principal of that is Assume good faith.  If you have a problem with me personally, please take it up on my talk page listed below, as this is not the place to do so.
 * You nominated this article for featured status. I gave my reasons why it shouldn't be featured.  You can either disagree with me,or  you can make changes in the article taking these reasons into account. However, as you yourself pointed out in another discussion, I do have the right to make my position known, as do others. Musikfabrik 23:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's funny you should mention Assume good faith, because I haven't seen that in the two days you've been editing my edits. You still haven't explained how you became so familiar with my source in three hours as to condemn it as weak.  It was an old college textbook that my sister used, if you're interested. Dafoeberezin3494 00:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I apologize for being so harsh on this page. I just thought that a college textbook would be a pretty reliable source of info.  I believe I have high Wikistress right now, maybe I should take a break for a while... Dafoeberezin3494 03:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Musikfabrik 08:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not going to address the personal issues discussed here as I have already made lengthy comments on your talk page.  However, given the subject at hand:
 * The Machlis book is generally used in American Universities to teach music history for non-music majors. It's very good for what it is: a very basic introduction to Classical Music (with a distinct bias towards European Art music written by men)for people who know little or nothing about the subject. Almost anyone who has taught music history or who has worked in a music library would know of this book. It is not, however, the best reference available because the goal of this book is to provide minimal information and not to go into detail. It is my point of view that an article which is to "featured" should have sources which give more than just basic information.
 * I suggested the New Grove because it is almost always easily consultable in University Libraries and while it still has some problems, it's generally considered to be more complete and a more reliable source by many scholars. It also generally lists a very complete bibliography, so it would be a good starting place for more in-depth research.
 * As I mentioned on your talk page, the List of major opera composers is edited using a collegial decision-making process. The majority of edits made on this list were made by one individual.  Perhaps you might want to invite other editors interested in Romantic Music to work on this list with you to improve the quality and the overall neutrality of the article?