|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. |
|
 FA |
This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Low |
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
|
|
 |
Thomas Beecham is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, cleanup, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
[edit] Top pic
I pressed the wrong button and reversed the latest contributor's swap of the 1910 photo and the Emu caricature, and then hastily reverted to the status quo ante. But on reflection I think the Emu pic is better at the top. Views gratefully received. - Tim riley (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, let's have the Emu one at the top. Rothorpe (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't feel strongly, but I thought an actual photo should be first, with drawings, etc. later. Maybe there's a guideline on it. I'm not sure. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, yes, larger picture better. Rothorpe (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- I concur. - Tim riley (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Quinlan and tour
Removed para as peripheral, but, naturally happy to withdraw if a majority of others demur. - Tim riley (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Error in template
The template at the top of this page has 'cleanup' as a verb. This is incorrect and needs to be changed. But I don't know how. Rothorpe (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
[edit] American recordings
This section threatened to expand disproportionately. Beecham's recorded legacy was principally with the LPO and RPO. I have pruned accordingly, but further trimming of the still rather lengthy American recording para would be advantageous, I think. Views invited on this. - Tim riley (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know if this question is stale, considering your recent improvements to the article, Tim, but I trimmed this paragraph a little bit more, just now. Feel free to revert if you think I have over-trimmed it. All the best. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. Tim riley (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Last sentence of 1910-1920
I simplified the sentence and added the "sol" cite. Please check this and make sure you agree - if not, please amend. The sentence previously implied that Beecham stopped conducting because his personal financial affairs had deteriorated, but the next section seems clear that it was because he had to deal with his father's estate. A case could be made that you do not need this sentence at all, as the facts will be entirely repeated in the next section. We don't usually have this type of "transition" sentence that pre-views the next section, even though other types of expository writing prefer them... In any case, kindly review. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think we need a segue here, because I think the Bedford Estate section needs to remain intact, and therefore from 1920 we have got to go back to 1914 to begin the Bedford section. I've tightened up the segue sentence. Tim riley (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. Looks good. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be some uncertainty about how many sons he had by Utica and who was the heir - the Baronetcy is currently in abeyance. 89.168.80.36 (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
.png){kind=small}
.jpg)
