Wikipedia:Peer review/Charles Villiers Stanford/archive1

Charles Villiers Stanford
This peer review discussion has been closed.. This is one of those magna opera that start as modest overhauls but develop a momentum of their own. The more I read about Stanford the more interesting I found him as a character; and the more I listened to his music the more impressed I was. He had an international reputation as a young man, but rather got left behind in the 20th century. But even if his compositions have been marginalised he was probably the most influential music teacher the UK has ever produced. So I think he deserves an article of FA quality, and I look forward to comments to help me get him there. Tim riley (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Nitpick #1: Re "the Italian opera company from London", note 2 says: "In his memoirs, Stanford listed the operas he heard performed by the company in Dublin. They were Le nozze di Figaro, Die Zauberflöte (in Italian as Il flauto magico), Fidelio, Il barbiere di Siviglia, Les deux journées, Robert le diable, Les Huguenots, Der Freischütz, Oberon, La fille du régiment (in Italian as La figlia del reggimento), Lucrezia Borgia, La traviata, Rigoletto, Hamlet, Faust and Mireille. Presumably the company was The Royal Italian Opera, then based at Covent Garden?  If so, how come there are French and German operas in the list?  Or did they also perform all of these in Italian along with the two mentioned in the note? --GuillaumeTell 22:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A most piquant point. My list (with the two Italian translations) is cribbed pretty well verbatim from Stanford's memoirs. I suppose the alternatives are to rummage in the British Library archives in re Les deux journées et al or to leave all the titles in their customary Wikipedia form. Thoughts invited on this... Tim riley (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I see that the British premiere of Les deux journées (ignoring an 1801 Covent Garden "adaptation" with some of Cherubini's music) was given by the Carl Rosa Opera Company on 27 October 1875 at the Princess's Theatre, London. Grove Opera describes this as a revival, and says that the company started out at the Gaiety Theatre, Dublin on 29 March of the same year.  I don't know what Stanford was doing around that date, but maybe the Carl Rosa performed some non-Italian works in Dublin in their original language? Maybe Rosa's 1867-71 activities in the USA and his tour of the English provinces in 1873 preceded his decision to devote the rest of his life to promoting opera in English?  Maybe Stanford's memory when writing his memoirs played him false?  Just speculation on my part.  However, the Dublin article in Grove does mention that French companies appeared there (at the Theatre Royal in Hawkins Street) in 1870 and 1875 --GuillaumeTell 22:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I certainly wouldn't bet much on the accuracy of Stanford's memoirs, though he'd have to have gone some to outdo Henry Wood in the creative embroidery department. I think I'll redraw the footnote to say that CVS said he saw these operas by the Italian Opera company, and stick to WP titles for the list, removing my discursive comments about translations into Italian. Will that do, do you think? Tim riley (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments by Wehwalt


 * Lede
 * I would suggest throwing a "Stanford" rather than a "he" in the first paragraph. Readers may be confused as to what is the surname (since Villiers is an unusual middle name and since the article is under the full name), and shouldn't make the eyes have to wander to the second paragraph for that.
 * Done. – Tim riley (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * " Cambridge University Musical Society, attracting international stars to perform there." There?  Is the society a place?  Suggest tweaking of language.
 * Tweaked. – Tim riley (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * " he combined the post" If he held both posts, can he be said to have "combined" them?  Hmmm.
 * I concur; redrawn. – Tim riley (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Some critics regarded Stanford, together with Hubert Parry and Alexander Mackenzie, as responsible for a renaissance in English music. However, after conspicuous success as a composer in the last two decades of the 19th century, he found his music eclipsed in the 20th century by that of Edward Elgar and some of his own former pupils." The shift in perspective, from the critics back to Stanford is somewhat jarring.  I would suggest the passive voice for the last sentence, "his fame was eclipsed by that of ..." or some such.
 * Done. – Tim riley (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Early years
 * "The young Stanford was given a conventional schooling in Dublin, with the classics strongly emphasised, at Henry Tilney Bassett's school" This is awkward, but I can suggest no improvement.
 * Redrawn. Better now, I think. – Tim riley (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "At the same time" Suggest omitting, the "twelve years old" a few lines on makes it unnecessary I think.
 * Done. – Tim riley (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Arthur O'Leary" Can you just give a couple of words of who he was. I would also perhaps put "composer" before Sullivan's name and perhaps "music writer" before Grove, who may not immediately associate the man and his works.
 * All done.
 * Is it possible to state John Stanford's reason? I imagine so his son would have something to fall back on.
 * I'm sure that's right, but the sources don't actually say so. Better leave as is, perhaps. – Tim riley (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The two "including" clauses in the final sentence of this subsection makes for a confusing sentence.
 * True. Amended.
 * Cambridge
 * "via Berlin to Bonn" That is a considerable detour, if I remember my Teutonic geography correctly.  Did he do anything interesting in Berlin?  If not, is the detour material?
 * No, and I've deleted reference to Berlin. – Tim riley (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "admirer of all Wagner's works, but immensely admired" I suggest an end to the mutual admiration society.
 * Good! One never spots one's own jingles and repetitions when attempting to proof-read one's own prose. – Tim riley (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "He ranked 65th of 66, and was awarded a third-class degree" In classics?  I am only guessing.
 * Yes. Now mentioned. – Tim riley (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Leipzig
 * "Stanford ignored his early works when assigning opus numbers in his mature years. The earliest compositions in his official list of works are a four-movement suite for piano and a toccata for piano, which both date from 1875" This seems rather an aside.
 * Redrawn. I want to make the point that he wrote more than his official catalogue would suggest, but I've pruned the prose. – Tim riley (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Rising composer
 * "composer. He was composing prolifically, though he later withdrew some of his compositions" A prolific composer indeed.
 * Another good catch – thank you!
 * "In 1875 his First Symphony won the second prize in a competition for symphonies by British composers held at the Alexandra Palace, although he had to wait a further two years to hear the work performed" Were the works not performed at the Alexandra Palace?
 * Not sure if the first prize winner's work was put on at the Ally Pally at the time, but Stanford's wasn't. – Tim riley (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "The two judges were Sir George Macfarren, professor of music at Cambridge, and Joachim." I would consign to a note, it is a stone in the narrative stream.
 * Done. I toyed with the idea of mentioning that the first prize was won by Macfarren's pupil and future son-in-law, but I refrained. – Tim riley (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The paragraph about The Veiled Prophet: I would reverse things and have the second-half description of it come before the whole bit about Cox and Box.  Is it not rather crushing to have a serious work rejected because it's not more like Pinafore?
 * Done. – Tim riley (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say "rivals" rather than "peers". And perhaps major rivals rather than only possible rivals.
 * Better. Done. – Tim riley (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "leading international performers including Joachim, Hans Richter" Is a conductor a performer?  Hmm.  Maybe "musical figures" rather than performers?  YMMV.
 * Done. – Tim riley (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say when the Hamburg premiere was, to establish that these two works are being discussed in chronological order by premiere.
 * Done. – Tim riley (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Dr. Stanford" Is this a courtesy title, like "Professor" famously for bandleaders?
 * By the time this source was published Stanford had a clutch of honorary doctorates. His first (mentioned in the "honours" section at the end of the biography) was in 1883.  – Tim riley (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

More later. Very interesting and well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * These comments are all very much ad rem and I have acted on them as indicated above. I am most grateful, and look forward to more at your leisure. – Tim riley (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Professor
 * "training school" Would you consider capitalising this?  "training school" carries unfortunate connotations in American English.  Also note the repetition of "training" in the sentence.
 * Redrawn. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "founder-director of the college, George Grove" The way this is linked had moving back through the article.  Yes, we've already met him.  The tone of this, combined with the link, is as if you are introducing someone new.
 * Duplicate link removed. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "In a study ..." split sentence. At least once.
 * Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "easy-going teacher. He insisted on one-to-one teaching," Suggest the second be changed.
 * Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "for many years after his death". It strikes me this and the next sentence interrupt the biographical flow, but can't think of a better place to put it.
 * Point taken, but this info is needed, I think, and I agree that there isn't a conspicuously better place for it. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Conductor
 * " For Cambridge" CUMS?
 * No – it was for the (annual, I think) presentation by an almost completely undergraduate cast of a classic Greek drama given, God save us, in the original. These rollicking shows were put on at the Theatre Royal, and I have redrafted accordingly.  – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Wagner, and the critic" suggest "Wagner; the critic"
 * Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ", Bernard Shaw writing as "Corno di Bassetto"" Suggest excellent opportunity to use nom de plume in a sentence.
 * I was given an allergy to that phrase forty-five years or more ago, by an English master who berated me for using bastard French. He insisted that the French was "nom de guerre" and the English was "pen name". I don't think I have written the words "nom de plume" since then until this very moment. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "He admired him when he was uninhibited " Although the likely meaning is clear, there is ambiguity.
 * Yes. I wrestled with this when writing it. I've redrawn – I think it's now unambiguous. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "was was" ahem
 * Errare humanum est. Very glad you spotted it. Now pruned.
 * "In October of the same year, Shaw was attacking" I suspect at some time you started this sentence "By".  Perhaps some adjustment.
 * Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Fuller Maitland" As you call him J A Fuller Maitland before, there may be some confusion in the reader's head.
 * Fuller Maitland, in addition to his many other sins, had one of those infuriating double-barrelled surnames that don't have a hyphen, so the uninitiated don't know where the given name ends and the surname begins. There ought to be a law. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "for the festival." I would move this before the series of works so the reader appreciates the significance of the dates.
 * Yes. Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "New works by other composers" That is, presented for the festival.
 * Redrawn
 * 20th century
 * "Cambridge doctorate" Honorary?
 * Well, yes and no. Some music doctorates in those days were certainly granted honoris causa, as in this case, but unlike the all-purpose "he's a jolly good chap" honorary degrees – typically doctorates of law – music doctorates were reserved for musicians. A man with an Hon LLD wouldn't go round calling himself "Doctor So-and-So", whereas the doctorate Elgar got definitely got him labelled as "Dr Elgar" in the papers, which he rather disliked. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "found "odious";[n 13] Elgar" full stop?
 * Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Last years
 * "Windsor" I'm not sure you've specified where he was living at the time.  I would throw something in at some point so this won't raise a question.
 * Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "The annual operatic production, " At CUMS?  Note that his adds to the confusion about residence.
 * Redrawn. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Stanford's generosity " A "though" or "however" would be welcome in this sentence.
 * Decidedly so. Redrawn. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Interment at Westminster Abbey! Quite an honour?  Who lobbied for Stanford?  Really, a bit more would be appreciated about the funeral.  Perhaps a couple of attending notables, a nice quote in praise of him by a euloger?
 * The lobbyist was Parry's successor as director of the RCM, Sir Hugh Allen. It wasn't, in truth, an all-star cast. Parry's widow, and Mackenzie were there, but neither of Stanford's most eminent pupils. I've added a quote from The Times which may fill the bill. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Works
 * "held their place in the repertoire," Which repertoire?  Ecclesiastical music?
 * Redrawn – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * " In his operas and elsewhere, Grove, Parry and later commentators have found music" This rings slightly oddly as we have been told Parry is dead.  Is there any way to have the two named commentators referred to in the past tense?
 * Redrawn – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Rodmell calls grand statements that only occasionally" Here we are talking in terms of the context of what kind of music?
 * Amended – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Chamber music
 * The first sentence has too many commas.
 * Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Church music
 * " in detail,[142] Nicholas Temperley, in Music in Britain, writes" Again, too many commas.
 * Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "imperishable" I don't think you can use that word outside a quotation.
 * These are the ipsissima verba, and I've now wrapped them in quotation marks. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Operas
 * "Dibble rates the work" Which?
 * Redrawn. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Burton praises" split sentence.
 * Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Recordings
 * "for the gramophone" I would omit this phrase.  People know what recorded is.
 * Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Final statement needs citation.
 * Redrawn and done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Well done as always, looking forward to FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am most grateful for your thorough scrutiny and detailed comments, which have helped considerably to improve the article. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Brief comment: I've not forgotten this, but I'm working through my reviews log (just done a couple of bishops, do I owe you one, Wehwalt?) and I'll be with you soon. One point struck me, though, on my initial quick skim-through. The only work of Stanfords I know fairly well is his Te Deum, in which I sang as a boy chorister oh so many moons erstwhile. And I can't see any mention of it! Woe, woe! Brianboulton (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And thrice woe! I'll have a rummage in the sources and see if the work is generally considered notable among CVS's works. (I too piped away as a treble, but I don't think I ever sang anything by Stanford.) – Tim riley (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Later: the Te Deum was composed for the 1898 Leeds Festival, and is definitely worth mentioning because it enhanced Stanford's standing with the festival committee by contrast with Sullivan's which suffered from his failure to write anything for that year's festival. I have added a footnote, with an Elgarian sting in the tail. – Tim riley (talk) 11:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ...and perhaps you could mention my role, circa 1967, St Matthew's Church choir (augmented). Brianboulton (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Detailed comments: Not many; the article is well constructed, informative and pleasant to read. I've not checked out image licences, and alas Jappalang isn't around any more to do it. The following are mainly nipicks; some more by way of suggestion:-
 * Lead
 * I don't think Stanford's undergrad role as Trinity's organist should be in the same sentence as his founding the RCM, with a simple "and" connector. They were unrelated achievements, years apart.
 * Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The point about his being overtaken by his former pupils is made twice, in the second and then the third paragraph.
 * Redrawn. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Early life
 * "solo part" → "solo parts"
 * Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The key D♭ major should be linked
 * Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "During another spell" → "During a second spell"?
 * Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Leipzig
 * Link Longfellow
 * Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Rising composer
 * "In 1875 his First Symphony won the second prize in a competition for symphonies by British composers held at the Alexandra Palace..." The present phrasing introduces slight if absurd ambiguities. Personally I would resolve this by a slight switch in phrase order: "In 1875 his First Symphony won the second prize in a competition held at the Alexandra Palace for symphonies by British composers,..."
 * This gave me some grief when writing it, and I am grateful for your suggested rewording – just the job. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Any reason indicated for father's disapproval of Jennie? A bit common, perhaps?
 * I think he just thought they were too young, but the biographies are not all that definite on the point. By the time they married they had already complied with Stanford Sr's insistence on waiting a year or three before tying the knot. John Stanford later came round and was fond of his daughter in law.  – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be better to say when or where The Veiled Prophet was performed before quoting the review in the MT.
 * Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "was beginning to be..." → "was becoming..."?
 * Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In the account of the respective stagings of Savonarola and The Canterbury Pilgrims we have "The Canterbury Pilgrims was premiered in London in April 1884, three months before Savonarola was presented at Covent Garden." I think this should be "Had been premiered".
 * Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Clarify: "It had a better reception than the latter, though..."
 * Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Cellier wasn't "the late" until 1891, so the critic's comments were not contemporary with the performances of the operas. Perhaps say "a later crtic"
 * Redrawn. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Professor
 * "In 1883, the Royal College of Music was set up..." By whom?
 * By a committee convened under the presidency of the Prince of Wales, but I'm reluctant to go down this byway. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "provided adequate musical training of professional orchestral players" → "provide adequate musical training for professional orchestral players" (you provide "for", not "of")
 * The training was provided, and the training was of players, but I don't feel strongly on the matter. Redrawn. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Conductor and composer
 * No specific points
 * 20th century
 * Better say who the Spy caricature is of.
 * Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The section beginning, "Stanford returned to opera in 1901, with..." is identical (except for the year) to the start of paragraph 3 of the previous section.
 * Well spotted! Thank you. Redrawn the second time round. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Last years
 * "The annual operatic production..." Clarify where
 * Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Could we have a composition date for The Travelling Companion?
 * Done (sort of) – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Works
 * Clarify that Dibble is a modern commentator, since just before quoting him you seem to be writing about the situation in the years immediately after Stanford's death.
 * Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "his six Irish Rhapsodies all date from the 20th century, the first dating from 1901..." Omit "dating"
 * Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Recording
 * No specific commment

That's me done. If I've duplicated another reviewer's comments I'm sorry. See you at FAC.
 * Many thanks for these eagle-eyed and helpful comments. The article is now decidedly improved by virtue of all the above comments. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Closing review – I don't foresee any more comments here, and am closing the review and decamping to FAC. Thanks to all noble contributors above. Tim riley (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)