Wikipedia:Peer review/Choral symphony/archive1

===Choral symphony===


 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because although this is a Good Article, it could be a great one or even a Featured Article. To do that, however, will take feedback as well as time and effort, and the best way to get feedback is through Peer Review.

Thanks, Jonyungk (talk) 04:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC) :Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Peer review/Choral symphony/archive1. Comments from
 * You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
 * Your two website sources need publishers and last access dates not run into the link title.
 * Done.
 * Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 14:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments

I appreciate that much work has gone into this article. It is quite long, and my review will necessarily extend over a few days. Here is the first part of it, dealing with the lead and the opening sections.
 * Lead
 * First sentence: I don't know how much of this wording has been taken from Kennedy, but it is a weak beginning to the article. For a start, "large" is a vague and relative term. It also has to be clear that an orchestra and choir are mandatory to the genre, soloists being optional. "Adheres to some extent to the musical form..." is again rather vague. I suggest that the sentence be rewritten along the lines: "A choral symphony is a musical composition for orchestra,  choir and sometimes soloists, which in its internal workings and overall musical architecture adheres broadly to the tenets of musical form for a symphony"
 * I also think that linking common words like orchestra and choir would be considered overlinking
 * More loose phrasing: the "advent", i.e. birth, of the 20th century is the year 1900 or 1901, not the whole century; "seemed to come into vogue" suggests a vague general impression rather than a factual statement. I suggest rewording along the following lines: "In the 19th century a few composers, notably Felix Mendelssohn and Franz Liszt, followed Beethoven in producing choral symphonic works, but the genre has developed further in the 20th century, with notable works by Benjamin Britten, Gustav Mahler, Sergei Rachmaninoff, Dmitri Shostakovich, Igor Stravinsky and Ralph Vaughan Williams, among others."
 * The sentence which follows, beginning: "In most of these works..." looks to me as if needing a citation.
 * Done. All these points have been addressed. Jonyungk (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Key features
 * WP:MOS says: Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain prose." What is the justification for presenting this section as a bullet-pointed list?
 * Grammar: "Unlike an oratorio or an opera, which is structured..." Strictly, "Unlike an oratorio or an opera, each of which is structured..." is correct, but it's probably easier to say: "Unlike oratorios or operas, which are structured..."
 * However, you need to qualify this statement, because by no means all operas are structured in this way. You might get away with "most operas".
 * "Sometimes the text can determine not only the overall tone of a choral symphony, but also give a basic outline that correlates to the four-movement scheme of a symphony or an approximate equivalent; the composer can then follow this scheme when writing the music." Sentences like that need illustrating in some way, otherwise it's difficult or impossible to work out what is meant.
 * "Finally, while composers of choral symphonies have many times hewn to the four-movement form or some equivalent of it..." Whose wording is this? Why are there no quotation marks around what appear to be straight quotations? This applies to other parts of this section. I am concerned about possible extensive quotation of copyrighted text.
 * Actually, the wording of the exact part of the sentence you mention is apparently mine; it does not match either of the sources for which it is cited. The Key features section was written at the behest of the GA reviewer and assembled from excerpts from following sections of the article. It could probably stand a substantial rewrite. Nothing was intentionally quoted but, as I have since found out, if the information being presented follows a similar pattern to a quote, it could be considered plagaristic in effect if not in intent. Therefore, I share your concern. Jonyungk (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * True to symphonic form
 * Blockquotes should not be used for the short Berlioz quotes.
 * The blockquote was removed but replaced when the article was subsequently copyedited, albeit now as one slightly longer quote. Jonyungk (talk) 05:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "A choral symphony can (but not necessarily) utilize..." The parenthesised phrase should be "but does not necessarily"
 * Done. Jonyungk (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Music and words as equals
 * Once again we have a bulleted section, which needs to be redrafted as plain prose.
 * In the part dealing with the Sea Symphony, the phrase "a grandiloquence and musical poetry as unexpectedly direct as the words." is a direct quote from the source. It must be put in quotes, and be preceded by something like: "...Whitman's poetry produced, as Michael Kennedy says, "a grandiloquence..."
 * Done. All these points have been addressed. Jonyungk (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I will continue as soon as possible (taking into account other commitments) Brianboulton (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Second tranche


 * Musical treatment of text
 * "Vaughan Williams' program note for A Sea Symphony also makes an important point on how the text was to be treated as music." The word "also" is redundant. But the sentence is worded as an editorial opinion, and needs to be rephrased neutrally: "Vaughan Williams' program note for A Sea Symphony discusses how how the text was to be treated as music" – or some such wording of your choice.
 * Done. Jonyungk (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "The dramatic and intellectual plan for the symphony would affect both its content and its overall musical structure,[27] with the symphony metamorphosing from being completely instrumental to completely choral." I believe that in this sentence the first "the symphony" refers to Mahler's eighth, while the second, "...the symphony metamorphosing..." refers to the symphonic form generally. This needs clarification in the text.
 * Reading on, I wonder if there is too much concentration on Mahler's Eighth in this section, in contrast to the relatively brief mentions of Vaughan Williams and Philip Glass?
 * Done. The mention of Mahler has been cut down while mentiion of Adams' Harmonium has been added. Jonyungk (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The quote re Glass's Seventh should be attributed.
 * Done. Jonyungk (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Words determining symphonic form
 * "While the text can be used in a fluid, non-narrative manner, it can also help determine not only the tone of the music to which it is set, but also suggest a basic symphonic outline." Two "alsos" in the sentence. Possible rewording: "While the text can be used in a fluid, non-narrative manner and can help determine the tone of the music to which it is set, it can also suggest a basic symphonic outline."
 * Done. Jonyungk (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The above sentence needs citation to a source.
 * Done. Jonyungk (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "To" Sergei Rachmaninoff, rather than "with"? Note: this sentence largely repeats wording included in the "Key features" section.
 * " Rachmaninoff follows this pattern in tone and orchestration..." You haven't introduced the work to which this comment relates, and I'm a bit puzzled because none of Rachmaninoff's three symphonies are choral. What work are you talking about?
 * His choral symphony The Bells. This point has been addressed. Jonyungk (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The paragraph dealing with Babi-Yar is under-cited, and may contain material that ought to be in quotes, and attributed.
 * Done. Jonyungk (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason why the long quotes from Britten and Glass should not be paraphrased into the main text?
 * Done. This point has been addressed. Jonyungk (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Words expanding symphonic form
 * Ref [9] – Holoman is cited as Holiman
 * "Berlioz intended to follow a design much like Beethoven's Ninth Symphony for his Roméo et Juliette, only with four instrumental movements instead of three before the choral finale. This would have also placed it within the same formal scheme overall as Berlioz' Symphonie fantastique." These sentences are cited to pp. 262–63 of Holoman's book Berlioz; can you indicate which statements on those pages supports this text?
 * The section is now quoted&mdash;located at the bottom half of p. 263 in Holomon. Jonyungk (talk) 20:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * First sentence of second paragraph needs to be rearranged thus: "In his Second Symphony, subtitled the "Lobgesang" ("Hymn of Praise"), Felix Mendelssohn followed the Beethovenian model in overall form but expanded the choral finale to become almost a work in itself".
 * Done Jonyungk (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Whose choice of word is "engendered"? Can the Gutenberg bible really be said to have "engendered", i.e. brought into being, man's progress towards enlightenment?
 * Done. This point has been addressed. Jonyungk (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref [39] needs more information, specifically date and ref number of the recording in question.
 * This information is included in the references section. The recording ref number has also been included in the ref itself. Jonyungk (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that at least some of the lengthy Glass quotes could be summarised into normal text.
 * Done. Jonyungk (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Will continue in due course. Brianboulton (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

A further slice:-


 * Symphonic form without symphonic argument
 * "hewn to", meaning "conformed to", is a bit of Am.Eng that will mystify Brit readers. I wonder if this, and the earlier use of "hew", could be converted to "conformed" in the interests of Anglo-American understanding?
 * Carelessness: "discource", "natutally", "part in parcel" (part and parcel)
 * The general tone of this section – as elsewhere in the article – seems overly didactic, especially in extracts such as: "Within musical development, contrasting musical themes would interact; part or all of these themes would meld, break away and transform one another before coming to some sort of conclusion.[11] This form of musical discourse was exactly that—purely musical[43]—and sonata form was a concept with no real application outside music." Authoritative statements like this need specific attribution, and use of quotes to establish exactly whose viewpoint is being presented.
 * Refs [45] and [47] are identical, should be combined.
 * This section has been removed. Jonyungk (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Programmatic versus symphonic
 * Beethoven caption: what is the source of this assertion?
 * Re Mahler: "...a purely instrumental finale following two vocal ones in his Third Symphony..." For "ones", read "movements"
 * This section has been changed and needs to be re-evaluated. Jonyungk (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Words changing programmatic intent
 * "However, while Liszt's inclusion of a choral finale in the revised version of his Faust can be said to effectively sum up the work and make it complete,[54] Liszt arguably changed the work's dramatic focus to the point of meriting a different interpretation of the work itself." "Can be said" – whose view is this? And "arguably" – whose argument?
 * "Some critics suggest..." They, or at least one of them, should be identified.
 * "rising above the murmer of the chorus" is surely a quoted phrase, and needs to be attributed.
 * "Professor and Liszt authority Reeves Shulstad..." Clumsy: try "Liszt authority Professor Reeves Shulstad..." – or drop the Prof title?
 * Second paragraph has "some critics claim" again
 * The image caption is too long and complex; furthermore, it repeats text in the article.
 * There is no word "avengement". "avenging of" or "vengeance for"
 * Done. All these points have been addressed. Jonyungk (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 12:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Final instalment


 * Words expanding meaning
 * Remove POV from first sentence
 * Identify who "Solomon" is before quoting him
 * This section has been eliminated. Jonyungk (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Supplanting text wordlessly
 * "Beethoven thought that perhaps this was so, even intending at one point to discard the choral ending to his Ninth Symphony and replace it with a purely instrumental one." The point about an instrumental finale to Beethoven's Ninth was made at the end of the prevous section
 * Last sentence: "In this sense, the symphonies of Liszt and Mahler owe a debt of influence." Should specify that this debt is to Berlioz.
 * This section has been eliminated. Jonyungk (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * General points
 * As some of my comments, above, have indicated, there is some issue about the overall tone of the article. In places it reads more like a lecture than a neutral encyclopedia article, and at times it is difficult to distinguish the editorial voice from the sources. I'd like to read the article again, after you have responded to my points, to see if this remains my impression.
 * Hopefully, this has been addressed to some degree, through increased use of quotations and elimination of text. Jonyungk (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is very little discussion of modern choral symphonies, apart from Philip Glass and a fleeting mention of Hanz Werner Henze. Indeed, the article stops so abruptly that it is almost as if there are further sections still to be written. Given the title of the article, shouldn't it be more representative of the whole genre, rather than of a few chosen classical works?
 * This point has been addressed to some extnt and will continue to be corrected as my research continues. The article should be re-read and re-evaluated as much new material in this regard has been included, including a section on symphonies for unaccompanied chorus Jonyungk (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What, if anywhere, is the source of the section titles? Are they entirely your own summaries of the section content?
 * They are entirely my own summaries. Jonyungk (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ricardiana

Images

Ricardiana (talk) 04:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Malcom Williamson.jpg - I don't think the Fair Use Rationale is sufficient at the moment.
 * File:SeaSymOpening.jpg - I'm not sure about this one either. Could you explain more why you feel the image aids the reader's understanding?
 * These images have been eliminated. Jonyungk (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Prose


 * ""the most important alike in technical experiment and in inspiration" I know this is a quotation, but it would be helpful to insert a noun in brackets, like this: "the most important [work]" - or whatever.
 * Done. Jonyungk (talk) 04:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "20 part work" should be hyphenated as 20 and part both modify work.
 * Done. Jonyungk (talk) 04:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "In addition, there is a general division of the choir" - wordy. Can get rid of the "there is" and recast along the lines of "In addition, the choir is generally divided".
 * Done. Jonyungk (talk) 04:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * " setting texts by Australian poet James McAuley." Should this be "setting texts by ... to music"?
 * Could probably work either way but something to think about. Jonyungk (talk) 04:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Organization


 * Sections 4, 5, and 7 are on the relation of words to music. Why the gap? I think it would make more sense to have all the discussion of words and music together in consecutive sections. Perhaps you could even put these three sections into subsections with level three headers - currently the article has no sub-sections, and I find them visually helpful.
 * Done. Good idea. Section 7 is now section 6, so all the sectinos on words are now together. Jonyungk (talk) 04:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The title of the section "Programmatic intent and the choral symphony" seems like it would be difficult for a general reader to understand. Could you phrase it differently?
 * I'm open to suggestions. Jonyungk (talk) 04:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What about simply "Programmatic intent"? Jonyungk (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Ricardiana (talk) 03:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

More coming....

Ricardiana (talk) 03:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Final comments


 * I saw you changed the bib. format for Liszt to Chicago - I think that would be nice here as well.


 * "Though it was Walt Whitman's poems that inspired him to write A Sea Symphony, and beginning as "songs of the sea" in emulation of the works of Charles Villiers Stanford, it became Vaughan Williams' intent to set them within symphonic bounds and stay within the four-movement norm." - I was a little confused here by the clause "and beginning" - was "Songs of the sea" the original title? Or is your point that the structure changed...? Not sure.
 * Done. I eliminated the middle part of the sentence, which took care of the problem and tightened things up a bit. Jonyungk (talk) 03:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Whitman's use of free verse was beginning to make waves" - in an article that is written in a generally erudite and sophisticated style, this stands out as rather casual. Could you re-phrase the "make waves" part?
 * Done. Jonyungk (talk) 03:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the way you've re-ordered the sections. Now that they're changed, it seems to me that the article is divided into three parts: defining the choral symphony, discussing the relation between words and music, discussing programmatic intent. If that's the case, then section 8 could go earlier, since it's part of defining what a choral symphony is. I also suggest making sections 2 through 5 part of a larger section, called something like "Relation of words and music", with a little mini-lead before what is now section 2. And finally section 6 could be a sub-section of what is now section 7. That sounds like a mess; here's what I mean:


 * Key features
 * Symphonies for unaccompanied chorus
 * Relation of words and music
 * Musical treatment of text
 * Words and music as equals
 * Words determining symphonic form
 * Words expanding symphonic form
 * Programmatic goals
 * Words changing programmatic intent
 * references, etc.

Take it for what it's worth; that's my suggestion.
 * Done. And a very good suggestion on restructuring the article. Thanks! Jonyungk (talk) 05:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that's it for my thoughts. I enjoyed reading the article and am impressed with all the work you've put into it. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 03:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)