(Translated by https://www.hiragana.jp/)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Oceanides/archive1 - Wikipedia Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Oceanides/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2016 [1].

The Oceanides[edit]

Nominator(s): Sgvrfjs (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about The Oceanides, written by the Finnish composer Jean Sibelius in 1914; indeed, it stands as his second to last tone poem and is widely considered to be one of his most underappreciated (and underplayed) masterpieces. If you have never heard it, do yourself a favor and give it a listen: the wave-crash climax near the end of the piece is perhaps the most epic and onomatopoetic 'water music' ever written, serving as a worthy comparison to Debussy's ubiquitous La Mer. While I did not create the original article, I am the editor responsible for having dramatically expanded the content and for having brought it up to GA status (with the tireless effort and sage council of Ipigott, Gerda Arendt, and Tim riley providing essential wind in my sails). I want to be clear that The Oceanides was not only my first GAN, but also marks my first FAC. In addition, I see it as but one part, however important, of a larger project of mine: bringing as many of the Sibelius tone poem stub pages as possible to GA or FA status. I have also tackled or begun to tackle The Wood Nymph, User:Sgvrfjs/Ensaga, and User:Sgvrfjs/Pohjolasdaughter. I really look forward to the editing community's comments and questions! Sgvrfjs (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lingzhi[edit]

  • Support contingent on references check (which I am probably too busy to do)

Thanks for giving the piece a read through, Lingzhi. I am presently out of town but rest assured that I will soon be able to attend to the issues you have raised. Just did not want you to think you were posting in a vacuum. Thanks again! Sgvrfjs (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PENDING Thanks for pointing this mistake out. I have added the source for Hepokoski and Dahlström; however, I am having some trouble with the edit. The reference still, upon being clicked, does not jump to the Hepokoski and Dahlström source. And, additionally, the Grove Music Online is a service for which one has to pay to access; the access URL I have is through my university, Vanderbilt. But clearly, this won't work for readers. What is the Wikipedia solution for this issue? Sgvrfjs (talk) 06:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the linking issue, see Template:Sfn#Citation_has_multiple_authors_and_no_date. On the URL, the problem is that you are sending the reader through the Vanderbilt proxy - to fix this, removed ".proxy.vanderbilt.edu" and it should work. Personally I would suggest taking out the question mark and everything that follows as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DONE Thanks for the assist on this; everything seems to work well know. The reference in the footnote now links appropriately to the source. I did, however, have to switch to using harvid rather than the sfn I have used throughout the article. Is this inconsistency a problem? Sgvrfjs (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, but switching the reference from {{cite web}} to {{citation}} is - cite web will work so long as you include |ref=harv. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PENDING Convergent evolution is my term, but one which clearly captures the meaning of Hurwitz's view. Initially, I had block-quoted the entirety of this interesting (and important) Hurwitz passage, but during the GAN review, Tim riley (talk · contribs) suggested that I cut down the number of instances of block quote. Thus, when reworking the Hurwitz quote into an adequate paraphrase, I settled on condensing his wording with the term convergent evolution, which is shorted but retains his meaning. Sgvrfjs (talk) 00:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's a formal term in academic literature, using it unattributed kinda smacks of WP:OR, at least in my book. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DONE I see your point and agree. I reworked the sentences on Hurwitz to eliminate the term convergent evolution. Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aallottaret ("It must be so".), this instance is awkward. It almost appears as though Aallottaret should be translated as "It must be so." The punctuation is awkward as well. Please make it clear that "It must be so" was Sibelius's opinion on a related question. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DONE Agreed; deleted "It must be so", which in retrospect seems like an unnecessary quotation that contains little additional information. Sgvrfjs (talk) 00:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A small point, "(movement No. 1 lost)" in the lede is the only mention of having lost it before this fact is taken as given in the Bard section. readers may have forgotten that brief mention by this point in the text, so I would suggest a slight rewording of the Bard section to begin the sentence by restating that the movement was lost... and while I'm here, how do we know one movement was lost, and if we do know one was lost, how do we know it came first? I need to reread I suppose. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DONE I have added a brief recapitulation of the point to begin this section. I should add, however, that the subsection 'Initial and intermediate versions' does contain the sentence, "Today, three versions of the work survive. Initially in 1913, Sibelius conceived of the commission as a three movement suite for orchestra in E-flat major, of which only No. 2 (Tempo moderato) and No. 3 (Allegro) are extant", so there is already a mention for readers about this point post-lede. That said, I agree with you that by the time the reader gets to the subsection on relation to The Bard, they may be liable to need a refresher. Hope this fix works. As for how we know only one movement was lost and that the lost movement preceded the Tempo moderato and the Allegro, I believe the answer is this: the pages of the manuscript are numbered, and the numbering of the Tempo moderato begins on 27, or something like that. Thus, the first 26 numbered pages are missing; thus the assumption is that the first movement was 25 pages (not counting 1 page for the title page), which is about the length of the original copy of The Bard. Likely, 25 pages is too few too encompass more than one movement. This is the best answer I can provide, and to my knowledge the numerous sources I have read do not really detail the point beyond this. Barnett is that author who deals with the original suite most extensively. Sgvrfjs (talk) 05:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is critic Cecil Gray, writing in 1931, "modern day", while Wilhelm Peterson-Berger (1923) is not? Where do we draw the line on "modern day"? Is it post-WWII, or is there some qualitative distinction that can be drawn between the two groups? If not, then it's possible that the easiest solution would be just to delete the (potentially unnecessary) term "modern day"... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DONE I moved Gray up to be with the older commentary, such as that by Peterson-Berger and others, and edited the descriptive phrase 'modern day commentators' to be 'more recent commentators'. The reason I see these two groups as distinct is because the latter group would have had knowledge of the reception of The Oceanides by the former group. But, you are right that Gray is best considered part of the earlier group. Hope this edit addresses your concerns. Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I'm not too keen on the internal link "translated to English" in the very first sentence of the lede. It seems to me to have a subtle aroma of WP:EASTEREGG, but perhaps I'm being too picky. I would suggest simply deleting the link rather than rewording, but others' opinions may differ. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DONE Agreed; I deleted the piped link you mentioned above, as well as the one about the Jäger Movement, which likely followed the same logic. I did, however, keep the piped link on 'extant' that page jumps to the subsection on 'Relation to The Bard'. Sgvrfjs (talk) 05:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His response was to isolate", but "isolate" is a transitive verb. If you stick in "himself" as the object, the sentence does begin to show early signs of awkwardness. Dozens of ways to fix, but must be done. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DONE I understand your point and am fine with the solution you found. I would just like to add that, originally, this passage read: "His response was to self-isolate." However, it was suggested during the GAN review that this should be truncated to just "isolate". Sgvrfjs (talk) 00:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "consists of two subjects Sibelius gradually develops in three informal stages: first, a placid ocean; second, a gathering storm; and third, a thunderous wave-crash climax" This passage is apt to be confusing, because apparently "subjects" has some sort of formal definition (A and B, lively and majestic), but an uninitiated reader would almost certainly look within surrounding lede text and conclude that the two subjects are... wind and water or water and storm or similar. I suggest mentioning A/B lively/majestic... And is there an article on tone poem subjects we can wikilink? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PENDING Hmmm...I see your point, but don't necessarily know what the fix is. I think mentioning A and B in the lede is not really that informative. As for whether we have an source we can link to to discuss the meaning of 'subject' in tone poems, I am at a loss. I think on this point, I might defer for the time being and wait for comments from other editors. Sgvrfjs (talk) 06:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingzhi: Hey. I was just curious if you had any other thoughts on this 'pending' issue. Sgvrfjs (talk) 04:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DONE Deleted; I cannot find where I read this, but it does not appear to be Barnett. Sgvrfjs (talk) 06:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PENDING Paraphrase; the exact quote from Rickards is, "The Oceanides is an extraordinary score, the subtlest, most magnificent evocation of the sea ever penned … The Oceanides, for all that it reflects the variability in mood of the sea, is music suffused by light". (Rickards, p. 118). Sgvrfjs (talk) 06:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingzhi: Hey. I was just curious if you had any other thoughts on this 'pending' issue. Sgvrfjs (talk) 04:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bit about the national anthem and "Finland thanks you" is fluff, but it serves as an aesthetic pad after the extended direct quote.. but then, looking at the sources, they are three in a row from Stoeckel 1971. Are we in danger of close paraphrase here? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DONE My solution is to footnote Sibelius' reaction to the orchestra's playing of the anthem, while retaining in the main body the content that explains the pieces (including the anthem) that joined The Oceanides on the June 4 program. As such, the aesthetic pad is shortened, but maintained; hopefully, the fluff is gone. If this edit was unnecessary in your mind, please feel free to revert it. Sgvrfjs (talk) 00:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm currently struggling with a temptation to Oppose. I'm still reading from whatever sources I can find. I see many bits of relevant vocabulary on the page, but am not sure at all that it presents an accurate description. Suggest requesting expert input... know anyone? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Lingzhi, for the update. Would you mind telling me which words in particular (e.g., "subjects") you find worrisome? Sgvrfjs (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your patience. I don't have my thoughts in order, and unfortunately will soon hit a very busy period in my life. But I can throw out a few impressions (pun intended):
  • First, I think the fact that this work is "strikingly different" from his other works (see "Gray, who calls the" in article's text) is more important than how often it was reworked, and thus belongs in the lede, whereas the number of revisions may or may not.
  • Second, an explanation of this difference is in order.. perhaps along the line of bits of this quote from Inventing Finnish Music by Kimmo Korhonen "The Fourth Symphony (1911) is an extreme example of Classical simplification. Its severity and tonal ambivalence link it to Expressionism. Around this time, Sibelius wrote other introvert works, and it was not until the tone poem Aallottaret (The Oceanides, 1914) that he made a departure towards a brighter Impressionist tone." essentially I'm wondering if this is the only piece in his oeuvre that has been discussed as Impressionistic, and if so, what term (if any... perhaps Expressionism? Tim Page seems to suggest that Sibelius generally defies classification but occasionally leans to Romanticism; if he defies classification, then the whole "If this is the only Impressionist thing then what is everything else" line of inquiry hits a problem...) more nearly characterizes his other work. IN SHORT: Where does Oceanides stand in comparison to his other works (if definable), and where does Sibelius stand in relation to other composers (if definable). Note that some critics call Sibelius a "nationalist-romantic", but others say that label is true insofar as it goes but is a major underestimation of his work.... if that helps. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third, in my mind at least there seems to be overlap between the "reception" and "analysis" sections. Admittedly that may be unavoidable, but I think that we should at least consider whether some bits should be moved. (I won't cause a fuss if you say "no, they can't", but I hope you will think about it.)
  • Fourth, what is this discussion of Sibelius as progressive, what does it mean.... and why do I see mentions of it in discussions of Oceanides etc.; is it something characteristic of Sibelius, or was Oceanides notably more or notably less progressive than his other works, or... what? I have no understanding of music, but I'm sure these things can be considered... Perhaps more points later, but as I mentioned, I am hitting my busy season... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Lingzhi, for your attention to detail. I am going to try to take each of these points individually:
  1. Definition of a "subject": I am not formally educated in music and music theory, and so, I am clearly not the most qualified person to answer this question. When faced with a question over a definition in music, I often turn to one or two books I have on my shelf: The New Everyman Dictionary of Music by Eric Blom (revised edition, 1988) and The Harvard Dictionary of Music by Don Michael Randel (4th edition, 2003). According to these resources, the definition of subject is as follows: per Everyman, "A theme used as a principal feature in a composition, esp. in a Fugue, where it is brought in a number of times, voice by voice, or in a Rondo, where it is a recurrent main theme returning after a series of episodes. In sonata form 1st and 2nd subjects are the main structural features, but there they are thematic groups more often than single themes"; and, per Harvard, "A melody or melodic fragment on which a composition or a major portion of one is based. The term, which has been used since the 16h century, implies that the material in question is developed or treated in some special way. It is not used principally with respect to the fugue and other imitative forms such as the ricercar and with respect to sonata form (where it may be synonymous with theme)". In my mind, when I use the word subject in my writing, I have theme in mind (per Everyman: a musical idea, generally melodic, sufficiently striking to be memorable and capable of being developed or varied in the course of a comp. A theme is generally complete in itself, whereas a motive is a figure which contributes something to a larger conception; but a precise distinction between the two is impossible"; and, per Harvard: "A musical idea, usually a melody, that forms the basis or starting point for a composition or a major section of one. Although the terms theme and subject are sometimes used interchangeably, as in the context of sonata form, theme often (though only since the 19th century) implies something slightly longer and more self-contained that subject".). So, with these four definitions from two respected sources in mind, here's where I think I stand: 1) the search for a clean distinction between various musical terms (e.g., subject, theme, motive, etc.) is particularly fraught, and indeed, common usage appears to have, more or less, eroded the distinctiveness between these terms that may have existed at an earlier time; 2) notice that Hurwitz sees The Oceanides as "sonata form without development" and Layton sees it as "something of a free rondo"; as the above definitions indicate, the use of subject is applicable here (or, at a minimum, not out of the ordinary), because the A and B subjects/themes do recure, are developed, and do form the basis (in terms of structure) of the composition in question; 3) the dean of Sibelius biographers, Erik Tawaststjerna (as translated by Layton), uses the term subjects and theme interchangeably in his writing.
  2. Overlap between RECEPTION and ANALYSIS: I can see your point; after all, the very people quoted in the Analysis section are individuals who reviewed the work upon its various performances. What I have attempted to do here and in other pieces I have written or am writing about the tone poems, is to make the Reception section focus solely upon the positive/negative evaluation of the compositions (e.g., so-and-so didn't like it, whereas so-and-so thought it was sublime!), while the Analysis section seeks to hone in on one or more (in this case, two) substantive discussions about the piece. I, personally, like this distinction/division, because it allows the reader to focus on different aspects of the all-encompassing "discussion" in smaller, bit-size pieces. I also think it works better conceptually. Perhaps this explanation is not convincing, and I will think a bit more about a different combined section route, but I am glad to hear that you won't oppose the candidacy on these grounds! :)
  • My section is getting long, isn't it? I apologize; you see, I am learning as I go. I want to repeat my muted wish that we could get someone with formal musical training in here to comment, BUT having said that, I feel a great deal of hope that my additions to the lede will accurately (that is the key concern, of course) resolve my earlier uneasiness about three points all in one blow: theme, subject, and what art school this piece should be considered within (if any). It also ameliorates the lack of discussion of the piece's relationship to Impressionism, which topic has its own section in body text and therefore is usually worthy of mention in the lede. I also appreciate your explanation of the difference between RECEPTION and ANALYSIS. I will continue to consider all these things, but I am feeling better about my earlier concerns on many fronts... I'm hoping this leaves only the issue of whether or not we need to discuss whether Oceanides is or isn't "progressive". Perhaps that topic is inside baseball; I dunno. I will consider Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am prepared to drop the issue of whether or not the piece is "progressive". This may be a topic for the Jean Sibelius page (I suspect it is), or maybe be entirely inside baseball and not grist for discussion in an encyclopedia. Either way, I'm dropping it for this article. I have stricken through relevant comments above. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also have requested a source check, as for example, what makes [Kalafut WP:RS. (I think that one can be safely deleted anyhow; it's backup)... I suppose I should get over my allergy to doing such checks. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I eliminated the Kalafut reference. All others seem to me to come from reputable sources, primarily books and journals. Sgvrfjs (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nikkimaria[edit]

Image review

PENDING Thank you for your help, Nikkimaria. As I noted before, this is my first FAC and I'm not exactly sure what it is I am supposed to do with respect to the images. Should they just be deleted because they were flagged? Or is there some sleuthing expected of me? Thanks! Sgvrfjs (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these will be fairly easy to fix, some will take a bit more sleuthing. If you are able to resolve an issue, do; if not, ask; if no one can, then the affected image should be removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the email: "The Norfolk Chamber Music Festival is very happy to give you permission to use the images you list below. To the best of the our knowledge the images are in the public domain, and we would like to be credited as the holders institution. Thank you for adding "courtesy of the the Norfolk Chamber Music Festival, Yale School of Music". Good luck with the Article. If possible, when it is completed we would be very interested in a copy for our music library. Kindest regards, Deanne Chin Associate Manager Norfolk Chamber Music Festival - Yale School of Music." Sgvrfjs (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Both of these are currently tagged with PD-USGov - you'll want to replace that with a tag explaining why the images are in the public domain, if it isn't because they're government works. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems someone else has already added OTRS templates to these, so I guess they are done. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per above, we need to verify that

the paintings were published or publicly displayed before 1923, not just created at that point. If they came from a private collection, it's not certain this would be the case. The Norfolk Chamber Music Festival images still say they are government works, but above it appears that that is not the case. And File:Sibelius_à_Ainola_1907.gif is a problem: if the author is unknown and the work was created this century, we can't say that the author died 70 years ago, and it doesn't appear we can verify date of first publication either. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • If we have OTRS tags, doesn't that mean I can just remove the "government works" data on those photos? [Still may need to track down one author?] Plus I swapped out one image with no provenance for another with provenance showing previous displays: File:Les Oceanides Les Naiades de la mer.jpg, see provenance at Peter Nahum At The Leicester Galleries. As for all other paintings: how many images do FACs need these days? I seem to recall they were considered "not strictly required, but highly advisable" back in the day. I think some of these images are just gonna get removed from the article. Tks for your attention. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • An OTRS tag is supposed to tell you that there's an email somewhere confirming a license - it isn't in itself a licensing tag. I don't know what this particular OTRS email says so I can't tell you what the tag should be.
  • As to how many images are needed, there's no minimum or maximum number, it's generally what makes sense to support the article content. I have no objection to removing some. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the exterior of the Music Shed, I may have a two-part answer, and I want to verify before I upload. So there's a postcard on the same Press Photos page where Sgvrfjs found the other photos ("A publicity post card prior to the 1940s"). That's part one. Then I found the identical postcard postmarked 1922 Apr-22 on this website. Do those bits of info fit the bill for uploading and including without recourse to email requests? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I put the postcard in the article (see above); I deleted a couple images; I have a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License image of sheet music that could replace another image if that license is OK. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining issues:

  • Parker image, per above
  • File:Max_Jensen_Großes_Marinestück.jpg needs a US PD tag
    • What tag is the "Dude's been dead over a hundred years" tag? And if it's the case that we need to establish public display for each and every individual painting separately, then I assume we'll have to rip through Commons and delete nearly everything, because it simply cannot be done. That's often true for the world-class painters, and certainly true for a minor afterthought like Max Jensen. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • {{PD-old-100}}. And usually it's not complicated - most often either "dude's been dead over a hundred years", or for more recent images there's decent documentation, or the painting was published at some point. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for the prompt and very helpful reply. I have a question: is there some online reference that lists the display history of nearly every work by nearly every reasonably well-known painter? Tks Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:CarlEllenStoeckel_NCMFYale.jpg, File:Shed1906interior_NCMFYale.jpg: need to sort out what the licensing actually is, per above
  • File:Sibelius_-_The_Oceanides,_Op.73_(trans._Gärtner_-_piano).png: licensing doesn't make sense. The music itself would have been under Sibelius' copyright, and this particular edition has a copyright notice
    • Well it's six of one and half dozen of another. On the source page for the image of the sheet music, the image has a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License very clearly displayed. I was just buying in to their licensing statement. While doing so, I was assuming that this was a case of transformation of format, similar to the case in which a PD written text in one language ceases to be PD when it is translated, as the translator holds licensing rights. But if we can't follow their clear licensing statement, then perhaps we could go Fair Use, since it's just one page of music from a large work. Meanwhile, the source page seems to have a PD license for the music itself. IANAL, YANAL. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ainola image, per above
  • @Nikkimaria: This image verification search is taking way too much of everyone's time. I have removed a number of offending images. if we manage to get verification for licensing later, we can stick 'em back in. I think the ones left are all OK. Some of them were discussed above.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments by Tim riley[edit]

Leaning to support – 3,500 words are are lot for a piece lasting 10 minutes, but there's no padding, no excessive detail here, though it might be worth hiving off the discography to its own article. A little fine-tuning is needed.

COMMENT I am well-aware of the padding concerns, and have fought to footnote all that I think is fluff but relevant (per your GAN review suggestions and using your reference style for Ravel). I should add, though, that there is perhaps one final bit in the main body that could be footnoted (or deleted), and that is Kajanus' speech on Sibelius' 50th b-day. Not exactly relevant to The Oceanides, even if it is beautiful; perhaps something better placed in the Jean Sibelius main page? Sgvrfjs (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DONE the Kajanus quote was excised from the article. Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A decision needs to be made and followed about whether to use English or American style for possessives ending in "s". At present we have both Sibelius's and Sibelius'.
PENDING Agreed; I have decided in all of the Sibelius articles I write to use the American Sibelius' rather than the English Sibelius's. I find 25 Sibelius possessives in the article, of which 24 are Sibelius' and 1 is Sibelius's; the latter, however, appears in a direct quote of Layton: "Its growth from the opening bars onward is profoundly organic", Layton writes. "And its apparent independence from the rest of Sibelius's work is manifest only at a superficial level". Please kindly advise me: should I edit the Layton quote to read "Its growth from the opening bars onward is profoundly organic", Layton writes. "And its apparent independence from the rest of [Sibelius'] work is manifest only at a superficial level". Or merely leave it as is? Sgvrfjs (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. The Manual of Style gives you licence to leave as punctuated in the original or to standardise on the punctuation as used elsewhere in the article. On reflection I'd be inclined to leave Layton's quote intact, but it's up to you. Tim riley talk 19:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DONE Okay; I'll keep Layton as it. Sgvrfjs (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is customary, as well as civil, to give people their titles, and you should afford Boult, Beecham, Gibson, both Davises and Elder theirs – and no lazy "Sir Thomas Beechams", please: it's worth doing the job properly as "Sir Thomas Beecham", etc. Rattle should probably not be given a title here, as he was not knighted at the time of the recording and its first release.
PENDING Agreed, and sorry to inadvertently deny the English their honors. :) I have fixed the Adrian Boult reference in text, but am struggling to figure out how to add 'Sir' to the names you described in the discography table without messing up the sortname function Gerda did for me. {sortname| Sir Adrian|Boult} would seem to work, but I don't know if this is a fix or work-around befitting a FAC! In fact, when I did it, it broke the links for Gibson and A. Davis. Thoughts? Sgvrfjs (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I'm not clever with tables, and I take the liberty of asking @SchroCat:, who is a wizz, for a steer on this. Tim riley talk 19:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PENDING Okay, thanks; I'll message him. Sgvrfjs (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and remember to pop round shortly, but if I forget, could you remind me? Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 08:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DONE thanks to, @SchroCat:, for your help! Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are inconsistent about whether to use words or symbols for flats.
DONE Agreed; edited to make everything the symbols. Sgvrfjs (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing very earth-shaking there, and I look forward to supporting. Not directly relevant to this review, but if one types "Oceanides" in the search box one ends up here. Well worth adding a hatnote there or otherwise disambiguating. Tim riley talk 13:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DONE thanks to, @Lingzhi:, for taking care of this! Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – a fine page, and I look forward to further additions to the series Sgvrfjs has in mind. It would, nonetheless, be no bad thing if future articles were a touch more concise than this one. Tim riley talk 23:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Tim, for your support and I am pleased to hear that your are a believer in the larger 'project' I have planned. As for the concerns you have over length, I concede that I am an editor who aims for writing a comprehensive article, and this goal does mean that the pieces are somewhat long-ish; I simply do not want to leave out details or pieces of the historical record that are important or noteworthy and in the analysis sections, I aim to let each side of the various 'debates' have their say. I do, however, work hard on the ledes because I recognize that not everyone wants to read all the detail of the main body and thus, the former's concision is an advantage. One final point: I see The Oceanides as a middle-of-the-pack tone poem in terms of anticipated article length; others, like En saga, Tapiola, Finlandia, and Lemminkaäinen would be longer; some, like Pohjola's Daughter and Luonnotar would be the same length; and, finally, most others would be much shorter, such as The Bard, The Dryad, Spring Song, The Wood Nymph, Nightride and Sunrise, and Pan and Echo. These lengths in my mind are a function of 1) historical significance/importance; 2) how much has been written by others (commentators, critics, academics); and 3) the story they have to tell (in terms of a laborious composition process, an important program, etc.). I have already written The Wood Nymph, which is shorter, and am at work with En saga, which is longer. I should add that I am starting a process, but probably will never complete the whole 13 tone poems. I see myself doing 4 of 5 (The Wood Nymph, The Oceanides, En saga, Pohjola's Daughter, and Lemminkäinen) in detail and then moving on! :) Sgvrfjs (talk) 04:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Gerda[edit]

I am sorry to not have time yet for in-depth looks, but have a few comments already.

  • Image placement: try to have people look "into" the article, for example Stenhammar, looking right, should be right, Debussy should be left.
DONE for Stenhammar, but there seems to be no good way to get Debussy to look into the article because of the blockquote from Gray. The Debussy image being placed on the left would disrupt the aesthetic of the indention pattern necessary for blockquotes relative to paragraphs. Maybe I can find a different Debussy image? Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image captions: make the connection to context, explaining why the image is there.
DONE, finally :) Sgvrfjs (talk) 07:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid pushing a header to the right by a left image, as the Moran sunset.
DONE Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider to separate books, journals, online in the refs.
DONE Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am back and have a few more questions.

  • I am happy we have an infobox which tells the reader at a glance that it's a tone poem by Sibelius, because with only the lead, the reader has to wade through a long sentence of other names before getting to that vital point. I suggest to word the first sentence with just the original title, and have all the other names later for those who would not look at a box.
  • I wonder if the composer's image shouldn't go below and something more relevant to the piece itself take the top position.
Done I've been clear on numerous occasions that in the series I have begun I prefer for the image of the composer to be in the infobox rather than some random piece of artwork that has a wave or a nymph in it. Since that seems to my memory to have been resolved in earlier discussions on the article talk page, I defer to it and am going to hold firm. Sorry! :) Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought more of the sheet music than some pretty wave ;) --GA
  • I believe that every quotation (such as "the finest evocation of the sea ... ever ... produced in music") in the the lead needs a citation right after the quotation (not the sentence).
  • I don't see why "in D major" is in brackets.
Done; also changed D-flat. Used commas instead of parentheses to set off the clauses in D major and in D-flat major. Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand "As the tempest subsides, a final chord sounds, symbolizing the mighty power and limitless expanse of the sea." - thinking I would need to know how it sounds.
Done The tempest is the large storm that generates the wave-crash climax. After this, a chord is played that Tawaststjerna thinks symbolizes the might power and limitless expanse of the sea. Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps add the name of who thinks this? --GA
Done Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest to mention the duration sooner and close the lead on the 2002 performances.
The reason I avoid doing so is that if we move this sentence up to the first or even second paragraph of the lede, then it is out of order chronologically, because the Yale version is not mentioned (and appropriately) until the third paragraph. I don't like the idea of having two separate duration sentences, so this isn't a fix. I'll have to think about it. Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it stays there,can you perhaps one more sentence about reception? It's not an ending of "mighty power" ;) --GA
DONE I've decided to leave it as is. Sorry. Sgvrfjs (talk) 07:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heading "Naming the new piece": I don't know what new means here, following final.
Done Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Composition

  • Can a patron be a couple?
Done Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "—acting on Parker's recommendation—" - can that be at the beginning or end of an already complicated sentence?
Done Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on other pieces and revisions"- for those familiar with his works, are there a few which could be mentioned?
Pending I'll have to look. Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

  • "always a thorn in Sibelius' side and whom the composer had once mocked" - I would read "always" as also belonging to the second clause, which doesn't work with "once".
Hmmm...to me the English is quite clear; two clauses and two temporal adverbs. Always goes to the first and once goes to the second, meaning Peterson-Berger repeatedly criticized Sibelius' music and that one time, in his diary, Sibelius had responded by mocking him. What fix would you suggest? Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't ask me, because I would simply drop the first clause about the "thorn" (don't like "always" anyway), leaving: "The influential Swedish critic Wilhelm Peterson-Berger, whom the composer had once mocked ..." --GA
DONE I've decided to leave it as is. Sorry. Sgvrfjs (talk) 07:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

General: Did I miss when the name The Oceanides first appeared?

Done Yes; we cannot know for certain because the episode is confusing, but in the subsection Naming the piece, I have tried to piece together the story, and Sibelius' vacillations, as expertly as possible. It has been assumed that Sibelius must have taken the Finnish title from the Kalevala and added the German version of The Oceanides as an explanatory note during publishing. Outside that, I don't think we have any other information. Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say when "The Oceanides" appeared first in print under that name, just supplies it as translation of the German. --GA

That's it, - enjoyable reading! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your changes! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dank[edit]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dank, for your support, as well as for having taken a look at the prose. The majority of your edits I support, but since your disclaimer gives me a little wiggle-room, I made two important changes: 1) I returned the original apostrophes around 'placid ocean', 'gathering storm', etc. because these are my paraphrases of Grimely's rather verbose explanations. Thus, in my mind, the quotation marks may not be appropriate, because it then makes it appear as though I/we are directly quoting the author; and, 2) I returned the words "Sibelius too" to the sentence that describes the second 1915 Sweden concert arrangements falling through, because the edit you made left it unclear as to who (Sibelius or Stenhammar) was the guilty party. Other than that, looks good. Thanks for your attention to detail! Sgvrfjs (talk) 04:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We need to take WT:MOS#double vs. single quotes into account, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 23:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Short version: MOS doesn't like the single quotes, and MOS compliance is part of the burden of FAC. If you'd rather not have double quotes because you're concerned that readers won't understand that the material isn't quoted, then find a way to rewrite it. - Dank (push to talk) 14:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DONE I eliminated the single quotes, but opted not to rewrite, since the phrases I used already are a paraphrase or rewrite of the Grimley original. The document should be single quotes free now! :) Sgvrfjs (talk) 03:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 03:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Laser brain[edit]

  • Page ranges in the References section are not presented consistently. I see a mixture of "pp" and "p".
  • Kilpeläinen isn't really a web site, right? I mean, you're citing a document, not a web site.
  • Books: please provide linked ISBNs. --Laser brain (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Laser brain: I have a few general questions. Some older works listed here at least seem to have no ISBNs (or I can't find them), but have been reprinted extensively, resulting in newer editions that do have ISBNs. So: If ISBNs are unavailable, are ASINs or OCLCs preferable? [The Wikipedia Way would generally be to say, "Neither, but be consistent." But I am just double-checking.] And if newer editions (which are presumably MUCH easier for interested readers to obtain, which makes listing them a small service to our readers) are available, link to those, and change the year in the cites/refs? Would we be worried about page numbers being off between editions, forex? Not sure. Tks. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • You've been rock-solid, Lingzhi. Thanks for getting the ball rolling again on what I had thought was a more or less dead FAC. But it may still die due to the image review that I don't know how to handle. Sgvrfjs (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boring point on possessive[edit]

DONE All Sibelius' changed to Sibelius's Sgvrfjs (talk) 07:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC) This is an excellent article which seems to me to meet all the FA attributes. I only have one nit-picking point. At various places in the article [Sibelius possessive] is represented as [Sibelius']. I believe the accredited usage should be [Sibelius's], the form I have always used in similar cases in my articles and which has never been queried. I have been unable to turn up the WP guidelines on this, but sources which I have found (see e.g. here) confirm this. Best, --Smerus (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:POSS Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected (as far as WP is concerned :-}). Best, --Smerus (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, I think the normal pronunciation is indeed "Sibeliusses" (as in Sibelius's works), in which case it would be incorrect to use Sibelius'. Maybe that is not the case in American English?--Ipigott (talk) 08:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty standard in American English to not include the additional s, and we have certainly litigated this before during the GA and FAC. Then again, the Sibelius bio uses Sibelius's. I have already adopted European dates and punctuation for you guys; why not European possessives, too! :) I hereby renounce my American citizenship. Or, perhaps let's just de-Latinize Sibelius's name to the family original of Sibbe. Our problem (and Sibbe's) would be solved. But I joke. Let's make the change, and I'll do so to my other Sibelius articles (and under construction Madetoja bio) as well. Sgvrfjs (talk) 08:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

@Nikkimaria and Laser brain: Just confirming, should I take it that we now have clean image and source reviews? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite there yet on images. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dr. Blofeld[edit]

I'll try to give this a look tomorrow, not images, but the overall article. Perhaps Nikkimaria could make it clear again to the nominators what still needs to be fixed, or has this been done now?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pending Sorry, I don't know the "rules" very well. I thought things were only supposed to be linked once. Is the preferred method actually to re-link anything linked in the lede once again upon its first mention in the body? In that case, there are many things that should be re-linked. Thoughts? Sgvrfjs (talk) 07:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've linked them for consistency. Yes, I think that is usually preferred, link once in the lede and once in the body.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No link for Finnish National Theatre?
Done Sgvrfjs (talk) 07:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Composer (and former Sibelius pupil) Leevi " -be consistent with the use of the definite article. The composer.
Done Sgvrfjs (talk) 07:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finnish composer Kalevi Aho and Conductor Osmo -ditto
Done Sgvrfjs (talk) 07:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very impressed with this. It's a superb piece of work , exactly what I'd expect for a featured article on a Sibelius composition. I'm surprised that the nomination has gone on as long as this, it looks a clear cut pass to me, but I gather there ws a problem with the images? @Ipigott: Have all of the images now been sorted out? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Blofeld As far as I can see, there are no further problems with the images. I would also have given strong Support to this article but as I did quite a bit of copy editing early on, I did not know whether or not it was permissible.--Ipigott (talk) 07:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the compliment! I had kind of lost my focus on this due to the amount of time it took (especially since I am lost when it comes to images), but fortunately key helpers like Lingzhi picked it up and helped answer the reviewers questions and make the relevant changes. There's a few changes I need to still make when I get a moment of free time. Sgvrfjs (talk) 07:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's one of the things which puts editors off FAC at times is the time and effort it takes to pass. For some reason this one has been gone on a long time, probably because of the uncertainty over the images. I think it's important that we should try avoid this at FAC as we don't want to deter people such as yourself from coming here again out of frustration with the process. Hopefully next time you won't have to wait so long. Some do take a lot longer than others for different reasons though. The important thing is that the best possible article results at the end of it, and that is usually achieved through a vigorous FAC. In future perhaps consider opening a Wikipedia:Peer review (see this for example) before coming to FAC as they tend to get more people involved with improving it sooner and stands a better chance of passing sooner.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good advice from Dr. B re. PR. One remaining point though (and sorry I didn't note earlier) is that, as this is Sgvrfjs's first FAC, we'd need a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing -- unless one of the reviewers has done so and I missed it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check by Cas Liber[edit]

  • A false positive triggered in Earwig's copyvio tool because of some quotes, looks okay.
  • Kilpeläinen used 6 times in all - material is faithful to source
  • Clements website used once - material is faithful to source

Just about all other sources offline. But what I have seen is ok, so leave it to coordinators to deem whether is enough. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Oceanides/archive1&oldid=1138473358"