Wikipedia:Peer review/Cosima Wagner/archive1

Cosima Wagner
This peer review discussion has been closed. Daughter of one malign genius (Liszt), wife to another (Wagner), Cosima Wagner stacked up plenty of negatives on her own account. Austere, glacial, unforgiving, obsessive, a rampant anti-Semite... Yet she served Wagner well; she was both his late muse and the protector of his legacy. The obsequious critic Ernest Newman thought she was one of the greatest women who ever lived; subsequent judgements were less indulgent. Trying to give a balanced account of such a controversial life is not easy, but I have done what I can; comments on all aspects welcomed. Brianboulton (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Peer reviewing your articles gets harder and harder. There's so little to add or quibble at. Here are my meagre gleanings:
 * Comments from Tim riley
 * Links to disambiguation pages: Grand Canal, Biebrich, Hans Richter
 * May I put in a strong plea that Cosima's first husband should be referred to, except when his first name is used, as "Bülow", not "von Bülow". The article on him gets this right. It is unidiomatic – indeed wrong, I'd say – to refer to "von Karajan", "von Bülow", "von Aschenbach".
 * Family background and early childhood
 * Link wet nurse?
 * Showing my ignorance, perhaps: I'd expect the wife of the Comte de Lavigny to be the Comtesse de Lavigny rather than Madame de Lavigny, but what do I know?
 * Schooling and adolescence
 * "Blandine and Cosima were meeting with their mother again" – I know this is acceptable in US English, but in UK usage one meets with disaster or success but not one's mother, whom one just meets
 * First festival
 * "princes and Grand Dukes" – inconsistent capitalisation
 * Parsifal
 * "Wagner took the baton from Levi and conducted the final scene" – to avoid the image of a tussle on the rostrum, perhaps a footnote explaining that this would have been out of sight of the audience, under cover of the Schalldecke?
 * Venice and death
 * "died … in Cosima's arms" – I never know what this phrase means. it sounds rather a contortion for both parties
 * It's a well-worn cliché, best removed. Brianboulton (talk) 10:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Interregnum
 * "Neither Liszt nor Bülow were interested" – was interested?
 * In control
 * "chief remembrancer" – I imagine Shaw meant something like "chief mourner", but the phrase is an unfamiliar one and though it's a shame to kill the joke by explaining it, I think you had better do so.
 * Shaw was referring, sarkily, to her insistence on retaining Wagner's stage sets and instructions long after these had become outdated. I think this is clear from the context: This policy incurred criticism, among others from Bernard Shaw, who in 1889 mocked Cosima as the "chief remembrancer".


 * Mahler needs a blue-link
 * "Bayreuth's right, acknowledged by Ludwig, to perform Parsifal exclusively" – might this flow better as "Bayreuth's exclusive right, acknowledged by Ludwig,  to perform Parsifal"?
 * Notes
 * "acquiline" is in a quote, so I didn't like to correct it to aquiline
 * I'm a rotten speller even when I'm copying stuff. Brianboulton (talk) 10:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

That's my lot. As usual I've amended a few typos, but please check you're happy with my changes. You've done marvellously to keep the article so neutral. The temptation to drive a stake through the old bat's heart must have been almost irresistible at times. – Tim riley (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for these comments, all of which I've addressed per your suggestions, except as noted above, Brianboulton (talk) 10:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments by Wehwalt:
 * Lede
 * "which closely followed after her death" Consider omitting "after".
 * Background and early childhood
 * "but the union had become sterile" perhaps "but the union had thereafter been barren".
 * I am using the word "sterile" in its more general sense of lacking in vitality or inspiration, rather than anyrelation to childbearing. Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "child became known thereafter." Strike thereafter,given the child's extreme youth, there is as yet nothing but thereafter.!
 * Did the wet nurses and the children accompany the parents?
 * "were dented" Dented?  That's unusual.  If the case was now hopeless, I would say "dashed".  If hope remained alive, I would use another construction.
 * It's quite common in BritEng to refer to hopes being "dented", i.e. diminished though not extinguished. I can alter to "diminished" if you feel it is a real problem for American readers. Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to me how Liszt's action solved the problem, or indeed exactly what the problem referred to is. Were they after social status or childcare?
 * I have redrafted to clarify. Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Was the father's right paramount in this situation? It might possibly be worth inclusion, possibly as an explanation of why Marie gave up the struggle.  It seems worth a few words in both cases.
 * Redrafted Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Schooling
 * "on this occasion" I would strike.  The reader knows there's going to be a next time.
 * Marriage to Hans
 * " pair were drawn together. They declared their feelings to Liszt," I think some might have to think twice to realize what was meant by "drawn together"  Suggest the feelings be made clearer.
 * "her husband's career, encouraging him to be more creative. " You haven't actually said what von Bulow did. You've mentioned conductor and pianist.  Thus it is not clear what he would do with the scenario you mention next.
 * The deaths: I understand that Daniel's death was shocking, even when one knows someone is going to die it can be a shock when it actually happens.  But if this shocked her despite the long, wasting illness than it was unexpected, at least from Cosima's viewpoint.  In that case, you shouldn't call the second one unexpected because it carries the implication that what is mentioned just before was expected, and it was not, so I gather, by Cosima.
 * "frequent contact with the composer was inevitable." Hm.  You make it sound like it was something to be avoided, when they had no reason to.  Perhaps "the Von Bülows often interacted with the composer" or similar.
 * "making a fair copy" a pipe to someplace descriptive of this process would be helpful if you know of one.
 * The only relevant pipe (this one) doesn't seem especially helpful. But I think most people will know what a fair copy is. Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I added a link to fair copy on Wiktionary Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Munich
 * " transformed " Perhaps something more mundane, "greatly improved"?
 * I think in this instance "transformed" is appropriate. Before Ludwig, Wagner was mired in debt, pursued everywhere by creditors and in constant danger of imprisonment. Ludwig got him out of a very deep hole. Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "where Cosima set up home" with or without Hans? Not clear.
 * "rival " Can there be a rivalry when only one side is aware?
 * "still took steps to avoid public scandal," You haven't made it clear that Hans is interested in making it public. Judging on his innings to date, quite the contrary would be expected.  You haven't presented his wife as, nearly as important to him as Wagner.
 * "continually subject" I would say "subjected". It may be an engvar thing.
 * "even inducing Ludwig to issue" I would make it clearer that he lied to Ludwig, perhaps "even deceiving Ludwig into issuing ..."
 * "youngest child," "youngest" reads oddly in this context. Perhaps "third and final" or just "final"
 * " Liszt only learned of the marriage through the newspapers." This implies he would not have known but for the newspapers, which is surely not the case, he would be bound to know sooner or later. Perhaps begin "Lizst was not informed in advance of the wedding, and learned of it first through the newspapers."  What about Hans, was he told of the wedding?
 * Bayreuth
 * "the Festival rescheduled " since you've deferred it already, I think this should be "scheduled" not rescheduled. It is already of indefinite date.
 * " but then disappeared" Are you saying no one knew where he was, or are you saying he just left town for one of his castles? Did he see the Ring?
 * It may not be clear to the reader if Wagner and von Bülow broke off professionally, so some explanation of why Richter, not von Bülow, conducted the Ring may be helpful. Either that or make the extent of the break clearer, after all, you have von B. sending Cosima relatively friendly notes.
 * I have added a footnote. None of the sources explain why Richter was selected for the conducting job, beyond the fact that Wagner owed him a favour as explained in the footnote. After the divorce VB cut himself off from the Wagners, never went to Bayreuth and was never seriously considered as a Festival conductor. I'm sure he would have declined if asked. Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "precluded any likely repeat" Perhaps "likely precluded any repeat."
 * Mildly surprised Vikki received a divorced woman.
 * " a repeat" the thing which is being referred to here is some time ago in the prose.  Perhaps "another season"

or "reviving the event".
 * " who along with" I would say "like".  I would note that this is a very casual and offhand way of introducing the topic of her anti-Semitism, which is definitely in the top three when you think of Cosima Wagner.  Perhaps a rethink is wise as to how to bring this up.  One idea would be to inaugurate the "Building the Festspielhaus" with the paragraph that follows that discusses the roots of the anti-Semitism.
 * I have reordered the material to address your point. I hope this reads better (your next two points are incorporated into the change. Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Cosima records the conductor's astonishment on being informed." This would seem more logical, chronologically, earlier in the sentence.
 * "visceral and unchanging." perhaps "visceral and remained unchanged."
 * It may be worth mentioning whether the second festival made or lost money, in view of the difficulties with the first.
 * "about whom there were suspicions of an affair" Unless I'm missing some nuance here, perhaps "who may have been having an affair with Wagner"
 * The whole Pringle thing is very unclear. I can't make out who is doing the claiming that she was there, and if the visit was just to Venice, or to the house where Wagner was.
 * It's unclear if they were still arguing when Wagner's heart attack occurred.
 * The Pringle matter is indeed unclear; I have added material to emphasise this. It is not certain that she and Wagner were having an affair, not known if she went to Venice in February 1883, not confirmed beyond Isolde's much later report that her parents had a row about it. It's all rather conjectural, so I have played it down. Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Mistress
 * " even for moment" Check quote. Since it probably wasn't in English, it is a bit odd.
 * Her unwillingness to deal with Mahler seems inconsistent with her willingness to bend for the betterment of Bayreuth.
 * Well, Levi was thrust upon them, though he gained a measure of acceptance by the quality of his work. But, as Carr puts it, "for Cosima, Levi was already one Jew too many", so she wouldn't accept Mahler. Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "her death in 1919." Unclear who "her" is.
 * "Winifred Williams" surely a pipe to her married name?
 * "the war" perhaps "the conflict" to avoid repetition.
 * Legacy
 * " own business acumen" can some other term besides business be found to avoid repetition? Or better, just strike the word.


 * Well done as usual.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review. I will address these points later today.


 * On the question of displaying Cosima's malignity to the world, I'm not certain you've gone far enough. You may want to include some notorious incident or other.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I will need to give this point further consideration; it would be very easy to let a POV become too apparent. Thank you again for your very useful comments. In most cases I have followed your suggestions, otherwise per my specific responses. Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch: Comments transferred from BB talk:

Cosima image review and other comments - I am reading the article, checking the images as I come to them. I will also comment on the text as needed.
 * I uploaded a new version of File:Cosima Wagner Lenbach.jpg as the former version had a watermark from Bridgeman (and was a slight crop of the painting compared to the second version uploaded).
 * I would also perhaps add in the cpation that this is a painting of her by Franz von Lenbach
 * Lead - I would add the year of her retirement to ''Her influence was such that this conservative approach was continued by her successors long after her retirement from the directorship.
 * File:Cropped Hans von Bulow.jpg faces right and draws the reader's eyes out of the page (instead of into the center, as the MOS wants). There is one left facing photo of him on Commons, File:Hans von Bülow.jpg, but it is not as well sourced and has some glare on the top (from a flash?), so I would rather keep this one.
 * Yes, I don't know the source of the left-facing image. The trouble with moving the existing one to the left is that it seriously disrupts the text. I'm not sure it matters too much that Bulow is looking the other way (he did that often enough during his marriage to Cosima!). If you think it's a serious problem, I could drop the Ludwig image, move Tribschen to where Ludwig is, and move Bulow to where Tribschen is. But of course, that means losing an image. How important an issue is this? Brianboulton (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that it is fine to keep the current image of Bülow in the article. It is a better image (no glare) with a clearer source. I doubt anyone will object to it facing right. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 22:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Extra word ''Bülow was quickly impressed by Cosima's pianistic skills, in which he saw the stamp of her father, and the pair were developed feelings each other.
 * Wikilink St. Hedwig's Cathedral in Berlin? (I've been there - it is an interesting church, though almost completely rebuilt after the war)
 * I would also use Ludwig II (the wikilink is correct, but he is just identified as "King Ludwig of Bavaria")
 * Identify the city (assume it is Munich) ''Ludwig also provided Wagner with a lakeside retreat at Lake Starnberg, and a grand house in the city itself.[34]
 * Link "Munich Hofoper"? - presumably to Bavarian State Opera?
 * Stray single quote in this (after "raised"): ''By the spring of 1873 only a third of the required funds had been raised' further pleas to Ludwig were initially ignored, but early in 1874, with the entire project on the verge of collapse, the king relented and provided a loan.[64]
 * I have read to the end of the "First festival" section - why did Bülow no longer conduct Wagner? Was it the divorce?
 * Re last point - this is covered later in the article. I have done all the minor fixes, leaving just the one outstanding point, per above. Brianboulton (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem for me is that Bülow is such a milquetoast cuckold, knowing that his wife Cosima and Wagner are having children together, but still associating with both of them, that I was not sure what he would do once the divorce was final. I read the note and it is fine, but it comes two sections after the divorce, and as a note some readers may not get to it until the end of the article (if then). I wonder if adding part of the note would help, say "After the divorce Bülow distanced himself from both Wagner and Cosima." after the current Legal processes extended the marriage until 18 July 1870, when the divorce was finally sanctioned by a Berlin court.[51] The rest of Bülow's history could remain in the note.

Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 22:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

More...
 * File:Richard and Cosima Wagner.jpg says "Original photo taken on 9th of May 1872 in Vienna by Fritz Luckhardt (1843-1894)." Should any of this information be included in the photo caption in the article? The year? The photographer?
 * I checked all the images and added more information in some cases to the files. I also fixed a few typos. Looks very good to me, as always, please let me know when it is at FAC. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Peter Cohen I've done one read through during which I wikilinked Minna Planer. I did wonder about your punctuation at times - I think I would use more commas and would probably avoid the parentheses about Minna's death. I plan to check my references which you don't have for additional information and read through the text when I'm more awake. However, my first impression is that this is a good read and a proper featured article. It is probably worth mentioning that, according to Cooke, it was Cosima who persuaded Wagner to drop the Buddhist/Schopenhauer I saw the world end conclusion from the immolation scene. (p.22 of the book of that name). Would you prefer me to insert soemthing myself or leave it to you? Ditto for what I find in other sources.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Peter. On the Schopenhauer thing, I do have Cooke's book. My feeling is that including this titbit might generate rather too much explanatory text, so let's not be too hasty. I would prefer to discuss any significant inserts or changes, though by all means feel free to implement minor adjustments or additions. Your punc query may simple arise from the different US/UK conventions, but I'll take a look. I have very limited online access this week, so I may initially be rather slow in responding. Brianboulton (talk) 09:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)