Wikipedia:Peer review/Mozart in Italy/archive1

Mozart in Italy

 * 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 January 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 January 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I would appreciate comments on all aspects of this article, especially prose and images. Is there anything important missing? Is there anything unimportant which is overcooked? This is a companion-piece to Mozart family Grand Tour, which was promoted last year, and should be an interesting addition to Wikipedia's Mozartiana.

Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've made some edits in the article itself but also have the following comments:


 * Para 2 of Lead: "the fons et origio of modern music and its terminology." - the "and its terminology" seems an awkward phrase.
 * I've altered it to "...and of much of its terminology". Does that sound better?
 * Photo of his birthplace - might be useful to put a bracketed note in the caption to explain "Mozarts Geburtshaus" means Mozart's birthplace.
 * Agreed, and done.
 * Background - importunate and "pushy". Isn't this basically a tautology?
 * Well, they mean slightly different things. "Importunate" - pestering, harrassing; "pushy" - self-assertive. Leopold was both. "Pushy" is the word Sadie uses (hence the quotes"). I'd prefer to keep both, unless there is a serious objection.
 * "Italy was considered the Mecca for all musicians ..." would this term have been used in the 1760s? Perhaps use "focal point" instead.
 * I doubt if Mecca was used in this way in the 18th century, but does that disqualify its use in a 21st century account of the journey? Again, the source (Sadie) uses the term, so I'm in good company. I'll consider your suggested rewording, however.
 * I'll copyedit the rest and more comments may follow. --DavidCane (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for these suggestions and for the useful copyedits. Brianboulton (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Some more comments:
 * Milan revisted, October 1771 – February 1772 - My tallying of the dates makes this October 1770 to February 1771 and I have changed the section heading.
 * My mistake, thanks for the correction
 * Name of the Archbishop who died in 1771 - The article on the Archbishopric of Salzburg gives his name as Sigismund von Schrattenbach rather than Siegmund Christoph von Schrattenburg. The difference in the first name could be due to latinisation or alternate spellings (the Archbishop that followed was known as both Jerome and Hieronymus), but that would not explain the difference in the ending of the family name.
 * Again, my careless mistake - Schrattenbach is of course correct.
 * Salzburgians - I think the correct collective name is Salzburgers.
 * You are right - altered
 * References, Sadie - There are two Sadie sources. It looks like all the references with his name are from his 2006 book. At first glance the Grove references don't appear to have a source as they are listed with Sadie's name first as well. The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 2nd edition (2001) is available online as part of Oxfordmusiconline.com and the Mozart Article there is credited to Cliff Eisen, et al (the et al including Stanley Sadie and four others). It might be worth adding Eisen to the reference to differentiate them.
 * All the "Sadie" references are to his 2006 book, and I have now added (2006)in each case, to make this clear. The two "Grove" references are both from the 1980 "New Grove", not from the revised 2001 edition. The 1980 New Grove was edited by Sadie, and the Mozart article written by him - it was published separately as such. Cliff Eisen may have refashioned the article for the 2001 edition. The Grove references could be rewritten as "Sadie (1980)", but would that clarify?
 * References, Order of the Golden Spur - The article on the order states that it is a single class order (i.e. everyone appointed to it is of the same rank - Knight). In this case seniority would be based on order of appointment in the order. The Grove Online articles for Gluck and Dittersdorf state that Gluck was appointed to the order in 1856 and Dittersdorf in early 1770, which would seem to put Mozart between the two in seniority.
 * I believes there must have been degrees of knighthood within the Order, since Gutman makes the same point about Wolfgang's ranking higher than Gluck's. I have added the Gutman reference, and slightly altered the wording of the footnote.
 * An interesting read. --DavidCane (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your helpful comments, on which I have acted as I believe necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 11:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Review by Jappalang


 * Thank you very much for this meticulous review. I look forward to receiving more. Brianboulton (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No problems. Here are some more, with a few further queries on previous changes.  Jappalang (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Entire article reviewed to the best of my ability.  Do not fret over the images.  I have gone through them and those that are deficient, I have corrected.  There should be little if any opposition to them in an FAC.  I would suggest including some public domain clips, if any exist, of the operas Mozart has composed during these trip.  Jappalang (talk) 07:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, may I thank you for the depth of this review, which has covered just about every aspect of the article and has, I think, helped greatly to improve it. One more thing: another editor, in good faith, has altered the first line of the article. What do you think of it? Should I revert to the former version? On the question of sound clips, my efforts to get them for the grand tour article got me lots of false promises and no action. I'll consider trying again, if I can find another helper. Brianboulton (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutrality's edits seem to be in line with WP:LEAD, in which if the article's subject is of a descriptive nature, then it might be not be necessary for the article's title to be stated word for word. The change from "fifteen" to 15 conforms to the general rule in WP:MOSNUM.  However, I think he might be overlinking to concerts and Italy (the last can remain in bold though), although nobility should be fine (since there may be readers who might not know of the distinct differences in Western caste at that time).  His intention is acceptable, and I think the language is fine, but it does seem that the first sentence has lost a feel of "this article describes the three journeys Mozart made to Italy."  Jappalang (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I agree; this version, though acceptable, loses some force. I have changed back to the original opening, but kept the link on nobility. Brianboulton (talk) 10:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments I've only read the beginning, but what I've seen is promising; a fascinating read! Looking forward to seeing this at FAC sometime soon.
 * Should archbishop (by itself) be capitalized or lowercase? It's presented in both forms in the article.
 * Either form is acceptable providing a consistent rule is applied. The rule I use is to capitalize when the full title, e.g. Archbishop of Salzburg, is used, but to user lower-case for general references to "the archbishop". I have corrected one inconsistency. Brianboulton (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "abandoned the idea to minimise his absence from Salzburg." I think a short clause might be helpful to explain why he wanted to minimise his absence. Was he under pressure from Salzburg to do so at this time?
 * Yes, I've altered "minimise his absence from" to "hasten his return to", and mentioned Leopold's concern about his reception after such a long absence. Brianboulton (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "from the archbishop towards the forthcoming trip" It's probably best to introduce his name here, rather than later.
 * OK I've done this.Brianboulton (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Solomon (p. 69) quotes from a letter Leopold wrote in October 1767 that "the trip to Naples is now definitely set for early next year". Do we know what this might be referring to and what happened to these plans?
 * Solomon doesn't say who this letter was written to. I think the letter merely confirms what we know - that Leopold was determined on an Italian trip as soon as possible. Brianboulton (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Leopold was cautious about revealing too much of the tour's finances..." What do you think about adding (perhaps in the notes) a bit about why he was not forthright in his letters home about his finances (his misstep in reveling in his success in the early years of the Grand Tour)? Budding Journalist 09:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * On the last point I have added a footnote per your suggestion, based on the information in Solomon, p. 58. Thank you for your interest in the article and I hope it will be at FAC soon. Brianboulton (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)