Wikipedia:Peer review/Thomas Beecham/archive2

Thomas Beecham

 * Previous peer review
 * This peer review discussion has been closed.

The current crop of commemorative CDs and BBC features marking the 50th anniversary of Beecham's death has prompted me to give the article a thorough overhaul and expansion from its existing GA state. I think it is now ready for FAC, or rather it will be if kind Wiki-colleagues pitch in with suggestions for further improvement. Beecham was, in my opinion, one of the finest conductors Britain has ever produced, and he deserves the best possible article. Tim riley (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Malleus Fatuorum Thank you very much for these, and for your eagle-eyed proof reading and amendments. Tim riley (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * "Together with his younger colleague Malcolm Sargent, Beecham founded the London Philharmonic and conducted its first performance at the Queen's Hall in 1932." This is saying that Beecham and Sargent conducted the London Philharmonic's first performance together. Is that what's meant?
 * Clarified. Tim riley (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * German music
 * "Beecham's attitude to 19th-century German repertoire was equivocal." Shouldn't there be a "the" before "repertoire"?
 * I don't think so, but am biddable. I'll see what other reviewers think. Tim riley (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * recordings
 * "From 1926 to 1932, Beecham made nearly 150 78-rpm sides". That really needs to be rewritten in some way to get rid of the two numbers colliding into each other rather awkwardly. The same with "... recording more than 300 78-rpm sides for Columbia".
 * Fixed.
 * Honours and commemorations
 * There's something wrong with the punctuation of the first paragraph.
 * Redone. Tim riley (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Beecham by Caryl Brahms and Ned Sherrin is a play celebrating the conductor. Written in 1979, it starred Timothy West in the title role ...". That doesn't seem quite right. The play didn't star Timothy West, but a performance of it did.
 * Redrawn. Tim riley (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I've given this another proofread, and I have no further comments. It seems ready for FAC, I think [after others have finished their peer reviews and Tim riley is ready to nominate]. Another super article, Tim riley! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Nikkimaria Nikkimaria (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Beecham-Strauss-Pitt-Walter.jpg - maybe reword caption as "Clockwise from top left"?
 * I wondered about that, but decided on the present wording as shorter, which is perhaps desirable in a caption. Tim riley (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Later – I find myself outvoted on this and have adopted the "clockwise" form. Tim riley (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * File:RPOLogo.png - "The image is used to identify the organization Thomas Beecham"? FUR needs some tweaking
 * I can't work out how to tweak, and will ask an image expert for help. Tim riley (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Be consistent in whether notes are cited parenthetically or with footnotes
 * I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Could you give me an example of what needs tweaking? Tim riley (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note 2 begins "Lucas (p. 17)...". It is the only note to have that type of parenthetical reference - the others use footnotes. I was curious as to why the difference existed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * All clear; I've amended. Thank you. Tim riley (talk) 12:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (Warning: reference formatting nitpicking):
 * be consistent in how you notate page ranges (for example, 62-63 vs 214-15);
 * My mistake – I thought that was the approved style: double digits left intact but triple ones trimmed. I've untrimmed the latter. Tim riley (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * why is "quoted" in italics but not "in"?;
 * As above, I thought that was the approved style. ("Ignorance, Madam, pure ignorance", as Dr. Johnson once admitted). I've amended. Tim riley (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Gramophone or The Gramophone?;
 * This is tricky. The magazine dropped the definite article from its title in the 1970s, restored it briefly in the 2000s and has now dropped it again. I have followed the form current at each mention. I sometimes wonder whether to link both versions at the first mention of each, but I have concluded that it would be more confusing than helpful to the reader. Tim riley (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * link Blyth on first occurrence instead of second
 * Thank you – done. Tim riley (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Haltrecht is in References but not Sources
 * Gracious me! I've hastily amended. Most grateful for your spotting that. Tim riley (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ref 131: page(s)?
 * And indeed header, too – I can't imagine how I missed this, and I have remedied the dereliction. Tim riley (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ref 153: formatting doesn't seem to match other journal references
 * Ought I to remove the name of the publisher? Tim riley (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably. It also has a number and the date in parentheses, which none of the others do. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Thank you. Tim riley (talk) 12:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Which Rochester? You might consider state or country names for ambiguous or lesser-known publisher locations
 * I didn't add this citation, and I see from the WorldCat that the book was published in London, not Rochester, and have amended accordingly. Tim riley (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Second World War or World War II? Brandenburg Concerto No. 3 or Third Brandenburg Concerto?
 * Amended. Tim riley (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Some overlinking: Royal Philharmonic Society, Reginald Kell, Brandenburg Concertos and others are linked in fairly close succession
 * Pruned as suggested, except for the Brandenburgs, which I think are in such different contexts (albeit in close proximity) that the links are helpful. Tim riley (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What's a palm court? "the provinces"? Beethovensaal? Make sure your text is clear to non-specialists (and non-Brits)
 * Linked "palm court"; "provinces" redrawn; I struggle with "Beethovensaal", which hasn't got an article to which to link; it is a major hall in Berlin, and I don't think one can explain it any more than one could explain "Queen's Hall" or "Carnegie Hall". Tim riley (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "From 1899 to 1909 he was estranged from his father, and his access to the Beecham family fortune was strictly limited" - since you've already mentioned the estrangement, this could be reordered: his access to the money was limited because of his estrangement
 * Done. Tim riley (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe provide some modern conversions for monetary figures?
 * People have strong views on this, pro and con. I am biddable, but would like to see what other reviewers think. Tim riley (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Where, asked Die Signale, the principal Berlin musical weekly, did London find such magnificent young instrumentalists?" - this might be better received as a direct quote
 * Done. Tim riley (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there a more descriptive heading than "Beecham and others"?
 * Nothing comes to mind: this section rather bundles together his relationships with professional colleagues and anecdotes about his remarks to colleagues and others. Neither is long enough to warrant a section of its own, and I cannot think of another header that covers both aspects of this section. Tim riley (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * First paragraph of 1950s is a little hard to follow - maybe reorganize slightly?
 * Done' Tim riley (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Sixty-six years after his first visit to America" - when was this? Is it worth discussing briefly earlier?
 * His father took him with him on a business trip. I don't think it would add anything to refer to it in the article. Tim riley (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Beecham was not known for his Bach[120] but nonetheless chose Bach (arranged by Beecham) for his debut at the Metropolitan Opera" - rephrase?
 * I am trying to make the point that Beecham wasn't presenting unadulterated Bach – anything but! I think a pronoun instead of the second "Beecham" would be ambiguous, and I generally prefer a slightly lumpy phrasing to an ambiguous one. Tim riley (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "described by The Times as "a travesty, albeit an invigorating one"" - is this referring to the piece, the performance, or the person they're memorializing?
 * And right on cue, an ambiguity of my own! Now amended. Tim riley (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Fauré did not feature often, although the Pavane was an exception" - a non-musician is going to be very lost here. Either link Pavane or write out the full title, and probably link the composer too.
 * I should most certainly have linked "Fauré", and have now done so – thank you! His Op. 50 is called just Pavane. I don't want to use opus numbers, which I think are offputting for casual readers, so Pavane is all I can call it. I've linked. Tim riley (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for this. Lots of food for thought here, and I'll work through it carefully. Tim riley (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Later: Now done. These were exceptionally helpful suggestions, and I am most grateful for your eagle eye. Tim riley (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: A fascinating article on this great conductor. I reviewed this for GA nearly three years ago; I'm a bit embarrassed by some of my heavy-handed comments of the time, but we all grow up a little. I have long felt the article to be FA-worthy, and I hope that is its destination now. I have a few nitpicks and suggestions, as follows:- Otherwise I look forward to seeing the article advance as a worthy addition to the growing WP classical music canon. Brianboulton (talk) 12:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Quotations, even in the lead, need to be cited
 * I'm not sure whether to leave it in quotes and cite it or simply knock out the quotes. I think the latter is perhaps easier on the reader's eye. – Tim riley (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think "range of repertoire" is tautologous; surely, the concept of "range" is within "repertoire".
 * So do I. I hope this wasn't my drafting, but I can't swear to it. I've amended. – Tim riley (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible to go beyond Richard Strauss, in illustrating the operas that Beecham introduced to England?
 * It would, though most of Beecham's other novelties sank without trace. As impresario he was responsible for the first UK performances of Boris Godunov and Prince Igor, but he didn't conduct them, and I think it might be misleading to put them in the list in the lead along with the Strauss works, which he did conduct. He conducted the premieres of three Delius operas – but (as you will see from the excellent Wikipedia article on that composer) Delius's operas aren't standard repertory. I 've added "and three of Delius's operas" without naming them. I must remember to justify that by adding details in the main text at the appropriate point. – Tim riley (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder at the positioning of the information about Beecham's parental estrangement in the middle of a section entitled "First orchestras".
 * Me too, but it has to go in at that chronological point, and is too important to be relegated to a footnote. I could rename the section 1899 – 1910, if that would be better. – Tim riley (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "...a long list of barely-known composers such as Étienne Méhul." Hmmm, maybe if the list was long we could have more than one name?
 * He was one of the ones I had heard of. Ones I hadn't were Nicolas Dalayrac, Ferdinando Paer and Nicolas Isouard. Fractionally less obscure composers Beecham proposed for the season included François-Adrien Boieldieu, Giovanni Paisiello, Luigi Cherubini, André Grétry and Domenico Cimarosa. I've gone for broke and bunged the first two in. – Tim riley (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Should "Sir Joseph Beecham's Grand Season of Russian Opera and Ballet" be in inverted commas?
 * Done. – Tim riley (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "...to keep music alive in London and Manchester, where he formed grandiose plans for a new opera house." Clarify whether these plans related to London and Manchester or (as I suspect) just Manchester.
 * You are right in your suspicion. On reflection I think the mention of the chimerical opera house is unnecessary, and I've zapped it. – Tim riley (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sentence needs splitting/clarification: "Originally Sargent and Beecham envisaged a reshuffled version of the London Symphony Orchestra, but the LSO, a self-governing co-operative, balked at their weeding out and replacement of underperforming players, and in 1932 Beecham lost patience and agreed with Sargent to set up a new orchestra from scratch." Three "ands"; clarify "their"
 * Done, I hope. – Tim riley (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Repetition: "...106 players including a few young players, straight from music college, many established players..." (And next sentence starts "The players..."
 * Good. Fixed. – Tim riley (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "...a substantial control"? Surely the indefinite article isn't necessary?
 * Not certain. I've removed it, without prejudice as the lawyers say. – Tim riley (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a little tantalising to have Boult's "beastly manner" comment, but to be given no clue about what Beecham actually did. Kick Toye downstairs? Could anything worthwhile be added here?
 * Beecham got the board of directors to gang up on Toye and secure his resignation. Toye got a hefty £5,000 pay-off. Toye put out a statement admitting that there had been "differences of opinion between the directors and myself with regard to questions of policy, management and financial control". (Lucas, p. 227). I'm not convinced this is interesting enough to put in, though I am biddable, as always. – Tim riley (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It reads as though the Magic Flute recording for EMI extended over two years. Is that so?
 * It is. So did the post-war Carmen. Beecham seemed quite unfazed by such things, and was able to pick up seamlessly where he left off. – Tim riley (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say: "...to postpone his plans for several months", to make it clear that he was still going.
 * Yes, good. – Tim riley (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "In addition to these posts..." Intervening material vitiates the use of "these"
 * So it does. Redrawn. – Tim riley (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps slightly golly-gosh wording such as "no fewer than" should be avoided as non-neutral?
 * True. Expunged. – Tim riley (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Odd to read the description of Wilhelm Furtwängler as Beecham's "younger colleague" - it diminishes him somehow. Is there another way of phrasing it?
 * Beecham used to call Furtwängler, "my boy", but I take your point. I was, I suppose, alluding in passing to the relatively young age at which Furtwängler died. I've removed the adjective none the less. – Tim riley (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the use of the English forms "The Impresario and Abduction from the Seraglio". In any event the latter would be "The Abduction...", but I'd prefer to see the more familiar German title here.
 * You're getting off lightly. At some point (I don't swear it was a Beecham production) the Flute was done at Covent Garden in Italian as Il flauto magico. I've Germanised the titles. – Tim riley (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "He accompanied the Fourth Piano Concerto with pleasure..." What does this mean - that he played the solo piano part? Surely not, and I'm not sure about adding "with pleasure".
 * That's pretty standard phrasing, I'm certain, for conducting the orchestral part of a concerto. As to the "with pleasure", the G major concerto was one of the Beethoven works Beecham thoroughly enjoyed, and the sources confirm it. (As, aurally, does the recording, which I've got.) – Tim riley (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A general point: Were any of Beecham's compositions ever published or performed publicly? If so, it might be worth mentioning what these were.
 * I have not seen any mention of it in any of the biographies. – Tim riley (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for these points. I shall work carefully through them – an enjoyable task. Tim riley (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Now done. Some queries, above, on which I'd be grateful for your thoughts in due course. Meanwhile, thank you very much for your comments – very much to the point, as always. – Tim riley (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm generally very happy with these responses. I don't think it's necessary to change the "First orchestras" section title unless other reviewers insist. And now you have satisfied my curiosity and confirmed that Beecham didn't physically abuse Toye, I don't think anything needs to be added here. I have not previously seen "accompanied" used in the way you do here. I accept that it is technically correct, but feel that this usage could confuse; is there anything against just saying that he "conducted"? Please let me know when this gets to FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 22:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Accompanied/conducted – done. Tim riley (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are some suggestions for improvement. I think this looks pretty good and made nit-picky comments as I read through. Please let me know when this goes (back) to FAC. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Lead - would "and three operas by Frederick Delius." by simpler than "and three of the operas of Frederick Delius."?
 * It would. Done – Tim riley (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Early years - would it help to somehow indicate that Beecham's pills were (are?) a laxative? They are linked...
 * Done – Tim riley (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Did he study music / composition at Oxford?
 * No – Classics (which I've added). Oxford was pretty much a musical desert in those days, and didn't even have a music faculty. – Tim riley (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * First orchestras - the transition between estranged from his father and his father secretkly commiting his mother to a mental hospital is a bit abrupt - could there be some sort of linking phrase or smoother transition? Or even something like  Soon afterwards Joseph Beecham secretly committed his wife to a mental hospital.[n 2] Thomas and his elder sister Emily helped to secure their mother's release and to force their father to pay annual alimony of £4,500,[9] for which Joseph disinherited them.[10] Beecham was estranged from his father and remained so for ten years. (refs are probably messed up - just moved the phrases around)
 * This information, and how and where to put it, has been a bugbear. I think your suggestion is a good one, and I have adopted it. – Tim riley (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Say that Bechstein Hall is in London? (moving to the big city!)
 * Yes. Good. Done. – Tim riley (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The program certain to deter the public was surely just one of several (many?) during .. two years starting in October 1907, Beecham and the enlarged New Symphony Orchestra gave concerts at the Queen's Hall Could this be made clearer - perhaps give the date of the deterent program?? Otherwise it sounds as if they put on the same crowd pleaser for two years
 * So it does! Now fixed – Tim riley (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Could more be said on the reconciliation between father and son (is more known as to why they reconciled?)
 * Not much is on record about this. Seemingly, Joseph – a shy man – put out tentative feelers and Thomas did not reject them. But why then, rather than earlier, later or never, is not clear. – Tim riley (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Would this caption "Beecham (top l.) and Richard Strauss; Percy Pitt (lower l.) and Bruno Walter in 1910" be better as something like "Clockwise from top left: Beecham, Richard Strauss, Percy Pitt, and Bruno Walter, all in 1910"
 * Well, I don't think so, as it is longer, but I'm outvoted – Nikkimaria has also suggested this (above), and I've now adopted it. – Tim riley (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * LSO is used as an abbreviation without defining it first, Ditto for LPO.
 * Done – Tim riley (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Could the header "Beecham and others" be renamed - perhaps "Relations with others"? WP:HEAD says not to re-use the article name in a header if possible
 * I've struggled with this header. I'm not quite sure that "Relations with others" quite covers the "Beecham stories" paras of the section, but, again, you are the second reviewer to mention this point and I'll go with your suggestion. – Tim riley (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Last paragraph (postage stamp and society) needs a ref or two
 * Right. (Once upon a time it had a picture of the stamp, but it was judged not to qualify under fair use rules, for reasons that I confess I did not understand) – Tim riley (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The seal of the RPO File:RPOLogo.png may be challenged as a fair use image at FAC - can anything more be said about it to tie the seal itself to Beecham (did he design it or suggest elements of the design or the motto)? Just trying to strengthen the rationale.
 * I didn't add this image, though I am very pleased to have it there. It is clearly an official grant of arms by the College of Arms rather than a commercial logo by a commercial designer. I have added a footnote that is wholly true and cited but may or may not help, and I have altered the caption. – Tim riley (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note 2 needs a terminal period (full stop)
 * Done – Tim riley (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I love the story about "he's still the king"
 * Any chance to include a sound clip or two - perhaps as fair use?
 * This is very definitely not my area of expertise. Some of his early recordings must be out of copyright (in the UK at least) but I know nothing about the rules or the technicalities of uploading recordings. – Tim riley (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
 * To the best of my knowledge and belief. – Tim riley (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am very grateful for the above comments. All suggestions adopted, with thanks, (except for the one about the reconciliation of father and son, on which I can find nothing more in the sources that I can add). I shall most gladly let you know when this article is up for FAC. – Tim riley (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is the first half of my review:

Lede Early years First orchestras 1910s
 * "finance opera in England from the 1910s until the start of the Second World War," This sounds a bit grander than it was, like he was financing all of opera in England (though it may have felt that way). I would tone it down a bit.
 * Done. – Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Beecham's repertoire was eclectic, sometimes favouring lesser-known composers over famous ones. His specialities included composers whose works were neglected in Britain before Beecham became their advocate, such as Delius and Berlioz." Aren't these two sentences basically saying the same thing?
 * I don't think so. The second illustrates the first. Rolling the two together would make rather a long sentence. – Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Did his father approve of his actions after leaving Oxford?
 * He doesn't seem to have objected, though none of the biographical sources (Reid, Jefferson, Lucas and Beecham himself) has much to say on the point. – Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hallé Somewhere in the early use of this name, I'd throw in a "Manchester" so the unfamiliar reader doesn't think we are referring to the German city (yes, no accent, but still could confuse).
 * Good idea. Have done. – Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "he loved deeply" Perhaps "came to love deeply".
 * I've never been quite happy with my drafting here. He fell for Delius's music then and there like a ton of bricks, but it's not easy to convey this in suitably encylopaedic tones. I have added "at once". – Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Beecham wasn't competing with those orchestras, the groups he led were. Suggest slight rephrasing.
 * Not sure I agree, but have rephrased. – Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * " He made no concessions to the box office*" Unless a pun is intended here, I should mention that "concessions" can mean discount tickets for a group, and suggest avoiding the word.
 * Redrawn. – Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is the fact that Beecham gave a series of concerts in Birmingham in 1915 I think, at the invitation of the Lord Mayor, some guy named Neville Chamberlain (didn't he go on to play football?), worthy of discussion? From what I recall, Beecham had differences with the local management, but the concerts did lead to the postwar founding of the City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra. Waiting to see if there's some mention of Beecham's er, difficult temperament. Never mind, I see there is.
 * Not much in the sources about this. Beecham did a lot in WWI for music all over the country. – Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Over the weekend, I will drag out my sources on Chamberlain and see what is said. It's mentioned in Rise of Neville Chamberlain, btw.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * wl impresario
 * Done. – Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why is the title of Hoffman in English and Fledermaus not?
 * This is what the WP articles call them, and is, by happy coincidence, how Beecham billed them. I earlier, with a sleeve across my windpipe, changed some of the Mozart operas to their German forms (as in WP) despite their being given by Beecham under their English titles. No such conflict here, though. – Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Beecham later acknowledged that in his early years he chose to present operas that were too obscure to attract the public." This sentence leaves the reader in doubt as to whether Beecham wanted the operas to be obscure. And the next sentence needs rephrasing, it tries to do too much and is confusing.
 * Good. Both amended. – Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "when Monteux was unavailable." I'd like to see a more active verb here, perhaps "became".
 * I was being a bit cryptic here. In fact Monteux took French leave to rush home to Paris to be with his wife after the birth of their first child (Canarina p. 38) leaving Diaghilev in a spot from which Beecham rescued him. I'd have liked to put this in, but it is too much of a by-way. "Became" will do very well. – Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * " the first performances in Britain" Use the word premiere here or elsewhere in the sentence to avoid first / first.
 * Yes, good. – Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "his father" I'm a bit confused. Was his father the impresario (his name's on the opera company) or Tommy? Perhaps the father's role, other than cheque writer, can be cleared up.
 * Again, an interesting sidelight here. All the opera and ballet seasons from 1910 to Joseph's death were subsidised by Joseph, but yes, he basically just signed the cheques. The Drury Lane season of 1913 could not be billed as Thomas Beecham's season because Beecham was temporarily contractually bound to the syndicate that ran Covent Garden. (Lucas, p. 97). Probably that is also why TB did not conduct during that season, but I can't find a citation to that effect. This, plainly, is too much of a detour from the main narrative. I could just lose the reference to the billing as "Sir Joseph's" if you think that would be better. – Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would do that.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Tim riley (talk) 10:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

London Philharmonic
 * "The main work was Richard Strauss's Ein Heldenleben." Of the evening?
 * Redrawn. – Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "poached from the LSO." This seems a little POV.
 * Redrawn – now a bit more informative, too. – Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Beecham had again secured substantial control of the Covent Garden opera seasons" Looking back, it isn't made clear he had this control before, just that some shows took place at Covent Garden.
 * Again, I'm chary of diversions, but the London operatic scene before WWI was a battle between the old guard who were accustomed to running the ROH, and two rival upstarts, Beecham and Oscar Hammerstein senior. They saw Hammerstein off (he lost his shirt), but Beecham gained effective control of the ROH for much – but not all – of the time. (Lucas pp. 90–91). I've expunged "again" from the 1930s section. – Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just smooth out the text, no need for diversions. Just strike "again".--Wehwalt (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No need to italicise "cycle" following Ring.
 * Done. – Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Sir Adrian Boult" I don't know who this guy is nor why I should care what he thinks. Since the reader, like me, may be too lazy to click, I suggest a brief characterisation of him.
 * Done. – Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Were the musicians and Beecham asked to give the Nazi salute, like the football team famously did? Just asking. The paragraph seems a little bit "well, he only went to Nazi Germany caus he had to". Are his visits there at all controversial, either during the war, postwar, or today? Or his leaving Britain when the skies were darkest? Seems to me just the sort of thing that can be held against a bloke.
 * Salute – I don't think I've seen any suggestion that the LPO or TB were asked to give the Nazi salute.
 * Controversy over the tour? The British government declined to give its official support to the tour. The Nazis evidently thought Beecham and the LPO a big enough catch to modify their usual dogma. There was a faked press photo of Beecham meeting Hitler, Goebbels et al in their box. The players of the Berlin PO and the LPO held a joint party and got on famously. The Berlin PO made a reciprocal visit to Britain the following year.
 * Opprobrium for leaving the UK during the war* there doesn't seem to have been any great disapproval. Perhaps his age and the memory of what he had done for British music in the previous war may have had something to do with it. Certainly he attracted nothing like the boo-hissing that e.g. the young Benjamin Britten got for being in the US during the war. – Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

1940s 1950s
 * I doubt if that image's fair use rationale is going to be sufficient.
 * So do I. I didn't put it in, though I'm glad to have it. I have a plan B if it has to go. – Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * On reflection I have put Plan B into effect – a Commons image of the old Met. Tim riley (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Link to the article on cooperatives.
 * Done. – Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "As in 1909 and in 1932, Beecham's assistants went to work in the freelance pool and elsewhere." Clearly to recruit musicians. I would say so.
 * Done. – Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would start with the exile from Covent Garden and then go to the 1950 tour.
 * I think that would make the chronology harder to follow. – Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I try to bring suggestions to people's attention, but editorial judgment should rule the day.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I wonder if the austerity of Covent Garden postwar had as much to do with the postwar austerity in the UK generally; obvously it would not do to be seen as overly posh under the circumstances.
 * It was chiefly a matter of money. CG was state-funded (minimally) for the first time, rather than run as the private pleasure-ground of the rich. – Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Was Beecham still the landlord, or had it been nationalised by then?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The owner was now Covent Garden Properties Company Limited, to which the Beecham family's private company had sold it in the wake of the Bedford/Beecham brouhaha. It was a public company, dealing exclusively in real estate. (Survey of London) It seems (same source) that the freehold of the ROH is still in commercial ownership, with a lease to the Government and from them a sub-lease to the Covent Garden trustees. Tim riley (talk) 10:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Personal life
 * " Though in his seventies, Beecham did not stick uncompromisingly to his familiar repertoire." Perhaps a rephrase is in order. Some people in their seventies do surprising things. And I question whether the sentence really adds anything in content.
 * Pruned the ageism. I think the point about occasional off-piste programming is worth making. – Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "and thereafter never left England" Perhaps inelegant. Can't you mention it was his last trip to America, and then say, "and as it proved, his last trip abroad".
 * Redrawn more simply. – Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "He was involved ... " I would reverse the order of this. First mention his separation from his wife, then the co-respondent issue. Bet the papers had fun with that.
 * Done. And yes, they did. He got away with it, though. – Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have my doubt that the image was taken in 1922, as the style of clothing looks like suited for a younger person than 18 years old. All we really know is that it was printed in that year.
 * The Illustrated London News would not, I think, have used old photographs. Its raison d'etre was up-to-date photography. But the year is not important, and I've blitzed it. – Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like the kid is wearing knickerbocker pants, which were generally dispensed with (I almost said dropped) by mid-teens.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Repertoire More to follow, hopefully by the weekend.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm curious to know how Beecham divorced her, when he was not in the UK at the time. Did he go to Reno?
 * He went to a place called Boise, where the divorce was granted with the proviso that he could not legally remarry in Idaho, which didn't bother Beecham or Betty as their place of residence was New York, where recently divorced residents could remarry at such time as suited them. (Lucas, p. 291) – Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the second and third paragraphs of the section should be made more chronological.
 * Good. Done. – Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Beecham's versions of Handel ignored the "professors, pedants, pedagogues"." It's very catchy, and difficult to understand. Who said it?
 * Sir Thomas ipse dixit. Redrawn. – Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

This is splendid stuff – all grist to the mill. I shall work through the points carefully. Please don't rush with the second batch: my conscience already pricks me for importuning you and other Wikicolleagues. Tim riley (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC) Later: all addressed. Some marvellously helpful stuff in there – thank you very much. I look forward to more, at your leisure. Tim riley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Picture of the stamp. Perhaps stamps, since they are published by the government, are public domain in the UK?  If there is no copyright, it would not need to qualify under fair use.  Perhaps you could check on this?  -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect crown copyright, which would not put it into the public domain until the January 1 next following the 50th anniversary of issuance.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Since Beecham in addition to being a "Sir" through his baronetcy, is a "Sir" through knighthood, should the postnominal letters for his order of knighthood be added?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I will read over the first half of the article and work on the second Unlikely to happen before Friday.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Stamp. I remain puzzled by the earlier deletion of the stamp, but it happened ages ago and I can't remember the exact events. The WP template for non-free stamps says this: "This image is of a postage stamp. The copyright for it may be held by the issuing authority, and there may be other restrictions on its reproduction. It is believed that the use of postage stamps to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design) … qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law." Putting the image next to a statement (which is already there) that the Royal Mail issued a stamp with TB's picture on it surely meets that criterion?
 * Post-nominal letters: If he'd had been given the Garter or the Thistle or the Bath (etc), post nominal letters would be appropriate, but Knights Bachelor (the vanilla flavour of knighthood), which he was, don't get post-nominals. He was credited on programmes and record sleeves as "Sir Thomas Beecham, Bart" and later "Sir Thomas Beecham, Bart, C.H.", although some people who take these things seriously aver that the correct contraction of Baronet is "Bt." rather than "Bart.". All clear, I hope? – Tim riley (talk) 09:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments. An excellent article, IMO close to FA. In an article of this length, there are bound to be trifles to consider. Here's what I found, some of which may be helpful:
 * In the third para of the lead, would it be better to add "Orchestra" after "London Philharmonic", and after "Royal Philharmonic"?
 * Not sure. They have both already been given in full in the first para; on balance I think the elided form is neater here, but I am happy to go with any consensus. Tim riley (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Early years: first sentence. St Helens is now in Merseyside, not Lancashire.  Do we need to cover that?
 * I wondered about that, but it was impeccably Lancastrian at all times during Beecham's life, and I think the blue link will suffice for anyone wanting more recent geographical information. Tim riley (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * First orchestras: first sentence. Delete comma after St Helens?  "in Manchester" follows awkwardly after "in St Helens" earlier; but not sure how to improve it.
 * Comma blitzed. The "Manchester" in this sentence is there in response to an earlier suggestion on this peer review page. I agree with you about the phrasing and if I can think of a better way of putting it I shall do so. Tim riley (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Consistent use of non-breaking spaces after numbers. For example, in 1910–1920, used after 190 and 273, but not thereafter. Further instances elsewhere.
 * Fixed Tim riley (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC).
 * London Philharmonic: end of fifth para. "fiefdom"?
 * I wondered if I'd get away with that. I've redrawn. Tim riley (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1940s: last sentence. Should "The Royal Family" be in quotes?
 * Arguable. I don't feel strongly and have added quotes. Tim riley (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1950s and later years: first para. "forty-nine" ->49 for consistency: later 80. "in English translations": "using" rather than "in"? Fourth para, missing word after "last" (or something — does not read quite right).
 * 49 - excellent! thank you
 * in/using - I think "in" is the work (sung in English rather than sung using English)
 * I don't want to repeat the word visit within the sentence, and this construction is a familiar one. Tim riley (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Finally a quibble from a Northerner. In the second sentence of the lead you say that he was "closely associated with the Liverpool Philharmonic and Hallé orchestras".  Yet the only mention in the body of the article of the Liverpool Philharmonic, is that some of its players featured in his first public performance.  You do mention the Hallé a bit more, but do not say that he was its principal conductor from 1915 (it's only in the navbox).  So what you contend in the lead is not really supported or cited in the body.
 * Excellent point. As a Scouser myself I should have banged the drum for the Phil a bit more, and will add something to the main text. He was always given first choice of guest slots for Phil seasons. He wasn't strictly principal conductor of the Hallé, though he did much to help them and was Elgar's successor as honorary president of the Hallé Concerts Society. Tim riley (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Best wishes at FA. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for all these suggestions, and particularly the last one, which I shall enjoy acting on. Tim riley (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment On quick review, this is a strong article and could be put through FAC. One point - the recordings section starts off with text (recording v. live performance) that could perhaps be better moved to the end of the section. Eusebeus (talk) 08:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I see what you mean and will ponder whether to move it. It would certainly make a nice flourish to finish the section with. Thanks for the suggestion and for your encouraging comment. Tim riley (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment Here's the remainder.
 * Repertoire
 * "to meet contemporary requirements". Uncertain what this means.  Does it mean he adapted the parts to fit modern instruments?  I'd be a bit less vague in any case.
 * Yes, good. Redrawn. Tim riley (talk) 09:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "were scarcely known, Beecham knew them so well ... " It's my personal opinion that the double use of "knew" (and forms) is more annoying than clever, but I understand you may have other views.
 * I hadn't spotted the jingle; I see what you mean, but every alternative wording I can think of is woollier ("few people were familiar… or Beecham was so knowledgable about..."). I'll ponder further and redraw if I can. Tim riley (talk) 09:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Is the laundry list of Handel works really needed? Can't you just leave it at three or four examples, perhaps the best known?
 * Now footnoted for those who are intested; skippable by those who aren't. Tim riley (talk) 09:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "using unscholarly 19th-century texts," I imagine for scores, but others may find it puzzling as well.
 * Redrawn. Tim riley (talk) 09:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * London. You may be getting overspecific here.  How about "He recorded all twelve "London" symphonies, but only five of them were in his customary repertoire at concerts."
 * Redrawn. Tim riley (talk) 09:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "1910 until his last year;" I assume you mean Beecham's.
 * Clarified. Tim riley (talk) 09:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Bizet was often in his programmes" You've been using very similar phrases to introduce composers, suggest mixing it up  a bit with "Beecham often selected Bizet's music for his programmes".
 * Redrawn. That's the sort of thing it's difficult to spot in one's own prose, and another pair of eyes is very valuable. Tim riley (talk) 09:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "C'est un dieu." No one speaks Icelandic these days.  suggest a parenthetical translation.
 * I think it might seem a touch patronising to translate so short and simple a phrase. I think even the most sedulous monoglot will get the message. (The writer of the liner note where I first saw it (it is also recorded elsewhere) didn't think the CD-buying public needed a crib, I notice.) Tim riley (talk) 09:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Giuseppe Illica" Are you perhaps referring to one or more of the dynamic duo, Giuseppe Giacosa and Luigi Illica?
 * The latter only; I'm so glad you spotted that conflation. The source (Jefferson) refers to "Giuseppe Illica" throughout three separate mentions plus an index entry, but it is certainly the librettist Illica who is referred to. The other sources get the first name right. Now amended. Tim riley (talk) 09:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Recordings
 * I imagine you say "American Columbia" to differentiate it from the other Columbia. I would say "American Columbia Records.
 * Good. Done. Tim riley (talk) 09:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would somewhere in there mention the introduction of the long-playing record, so that the reader will have a gauge of what was recorded for what.
 * Good. Added a sentence near the top of the section explaining TB's practice of re-recording his favourites to take advantage of improvements in technology. Tim riley (talk) 09:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * EMI releases. Had these fallen out of print?  Never released?  What was the commonality?  Or was it completely random?
 * All are reissues, and (I assume) meant to be a representative selection – though not, IMO, a complete success if so: no opera, for instance. Tim riley (talk) 09:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking forward to seeing it at FAC once these are taken care of.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Splendid! I'll go through these thoroughly and report back here. Many thanks, meanwhile. Tim riley (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Later: now gone through and actioned as outlined above. I am most grateful for this concluding batch of comments. I think I am now ready to close the PR and go to FAC. Warmest thanks to all who contributed above. Tim riley (talk) 09:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)