Talk:Carl Nielsen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Carl Nielsen is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 9, 2015.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
May 15, 2015 Good article nominee Listed
June 5, 2015 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

150th anniversary on 9 June 2015[edit]

It has just occurred to me that the 150th anniversary of the birth of Carl Nielsen is on 9 June 2015. I think we should make every effort to bring the article up to GA if not FA by then. There are likely to be a host of Danish and worldwide celebrations in connection with the anniversary. I look forward to assistance from the usual contrubitors.--Ipigott (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Nothing wrong with nominating for GA right now! - FA will be tricky, there's not much time left, - but it's not impossible. I removed most fixed image sizes. If a different size is wanted, it should be achieved by "upright=1.2", for example, a factor. For FA, all images should have a parameter "alt=", describing the image for visually impaired readers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Also noticed: the lead should contain only a summary of information sourced in the body. Then no reference is required in the lead other than for quotations. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
As my grandmother used to say "Quick's the work and sharp's the action". Thanks for your work and advice here and on my talk page.--Ipigott (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd be happy to help, especially with me being able to focus more time on projects such as this in about two weeks time. I won't be of much help until then, but I am still very willing to assist on this and other Nielsen related pages like his Wind Wuintet, his concertos, and his symphonies. Jonahman10 (talk) 01:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

GAN/FAC drive for anniversary[edit]

Ian Pigott has been kind enough to invite me, as an habitué at FAC for composers, to suggest things that would help get the page up to FA level. Here are some thoughts:

  • Lead
    • At the moment it weighs in at just under 200 words. It's not at all bad, but 300–400 words are about par for the course. You need to cover all the important points of the main text.
    • And you mustn't mention anything in the lead that you don't cover in detail in the main text. It is a bad sign when there are citations in a lead (except for direct quotations), and there are six here. All the cited statements should be in the main text, and you can then lose the cites in the lead.
  • Life
    • You knock off his biography in 1,400 or so words. From a quick look at existing FAs on composers something between 4,500 and 5,000 is about the norm. It would be a start if you incorporated the "Family" section into the Life.
  • Music
    • This part of the article seems to me to be in pretty good shape. The "Objektivering" section should be incorporated in it, I think, rather than standing alone.
  • Carl Nielsen's students
    • You should canvass wider opinion than mine on this, but I reckon a list like this will sink the article at FAC. Wikipedia is (IMO absurdly) anti lists within articles. I advise you to pick out the best-known six pupils and list them in a single sentence within the Life section, putting the also-rans into an explanatory footnote. See (and forgive the vanity of self-quotation) text and related footnote 7 in Charles Villiers Stanford for how I think you could deal with the matter.
  • Carl Nielsen concerts today
    • As with the students, the list is a no-no. I'd compress it into a sentence or two and add it to the Reputation section (possibly retitling that as Reputation and Legacy or some such).

That's a broad plan of campaign for you to consider. If you adopt it – or even if you don't – I earnestly advise you to take the revised text to peer review before going anywhere near GAN or FAC. There, you will get invaluable feedback on points of detail. (Such as asking what the import is of the "regulations by the Ministry of Church Affairs", which makes no sense to those of us not in the know.)

As I have said, chez Ipigott, I shall be happy to help with research or copy-editing etc if wanted. Ping me ad lib. And good luck! – Tim riley talk 17:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Tim. This is an excellent list of recommendations at short notice and I think I will be able to follow up on it without too much difficulty. With Dr. B.'s kind assistance we may also be able to sort out the sourcing formatting problems (my constant weakness). I had made a mental note that I would have to return to Nielsen in early 2015 but have been distracted by concentrating on women writers during Women's History Month. Nielsen of course deserves special attention over the next few weeks. Whether or not we reach FA, we should do everything possible to improve the quality of such an important article. I am of course trying to rally wider support. But as our friend W.S. Gilbert reminds us: "While the sun shines make your hay; Where a will is there's a way..." The sun is shining brightly here in Luxembourg and there is obviously a strong will revealing the way!--Ipigott (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Beard the lion in his lair, none but the brave deserve GAN or FAC. Onward and upward. Ping me at any time if I can be of help. Tim riley talk 19:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

In fact this article needs a great deal of clearing up if it is to get to GA. There is a lot of sloppy and turgid writing, especially in the music section, coupled with banal quotes taken from programme notes and unsubstantiated opinions ('immediately successful', 'remained a firm favourite', 'perhaps most closely associated with', 'less aurally accessible' etc.). A number of the cites seem to be dead. I've started to have a go at it, but it really needs a complete overhaul.--Smerus (talk) 05:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much Smerus for stepping in on this. I am certainly aware with the problem of sourcing, dead links, etc., and am in the slow process of sorting them out. Any assistance you can provide in sorting out some of the problems you mention would be greatly appreciated. I should of course have started work on all this much earlier in order to raise the quality of the article in time for the anniversary on 9 June. I'll see what I can achieve between now and then but it's going to require lots of additional work.--Ipigott (talk) 07:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The music section now that I look at it closely is also not up to scratch. There is no point giving technical descriptions of each of the major works - they are covered in their own articles. And detailed descriptions of the minor works don't belong in an article on the composer. What is needed is more on how Nielsen wrote and what made his music different. I will try to think on this. By the way, virtually all the 'Carl Nielsen Edition' citations seem to be dead.--Smerus (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I know they are dead in the article for the time being but I will revive them as soon as I have time. The Royal Danish Library has simply changed the URLs. It might seem an easy matter to sort out but I simply have not had time to do it. I know most of the works are covered by separate articles. I wrote them myself. You advice is however very welcome and I am extremely happy to see you are willing to participate in improving the article. Apologies for not remembering to work on all this earlier this year.--Ipigott (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
All noted, thanks. Well done with the supporting articles!!--Smerus (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes it does need a fair bit of work for GA Smerus but I don't want to put off Ipigott by being too critical of it! I think it could be brought up to GA quite easily by 9 June, However, Ipigott really needs to get cracking on sorting out the sources and removing content which isn't verifiable if this is to proceed. I don't see why that's too difficult. Just go through and add sources and replace the existing ones and I'll remove the old ones from the citations section as you proceed. At least once that is done we can focus on the content.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
OK I think I'm almost finished tinkering with the article for the meantime except for the 'Reception' section and the lead; the latter anyway should remain till last when the article is ready to go to peer review.--Smerus (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I've put a different pic at the head as a suggestion, as the other one was small and didn't enlarge.--Smerus (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much Smerus for devoting so much time and effort to the article. Your improvements are much appreciated. I'm also glad to see you've restored the dead links. Perhaps I should wait until tomorrow before I undertake any further work on the article. I don't want to cause any edit conflicts.--Ipigott (talk) 08:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

References[edit]

Many of the citation references are I think inadequate for GA, as they cite page ranges but not specific pages. This is partly a consequence of the rather cumbrous citation formats which the article has used in the past. This is particularly true of the pdfs cited from the CN Edition. I think this needs to be remedied before the article goes to peer review, as it will certainly be picked up there.--Smerus (talk) 09:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I share your concerns about the specificity of some of the references. I have looked at several of the Carl Nielsen Edition references which is many cases have been included so that the reader can obtain a detailed overview of the work in question. Typically much of the relevant information is presented as an introduction with lower case Roman numerals as page numbers. In the section on "chamber music", I provided a reference to the edition's Chamber Music 1 as it covers the various pieces mentioned in the article, both in general and specifically for each piece. Do you think it is necessary to provide five or six different references with different pages number for the individual compositions or can various page ranges be specified within the same reference?--Ipigott (talk) 09:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
My own preference is always to give a separate reference for each page or page range that supports a statement. In my experience this is also something required by GA/FA reviews. That's why I find the existing reference formats from, e.g. the CN Edition, rather awkward, as they don't make allowance for this specificity. Best, --Smerus (talk) 09:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Help!! I've added as a source Robert Layton's article in Oxford Companion to Music, but don't quite know how to format this source in line with the others - would be grateful if someone can do this.--Smerus (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Using the Harvard-callouts-and-citation-in-sources method: with just one author, we can just omit the missing date bit if there is no date {{Sfn|Layton}}. but if there are multiple authors, some trickery is necessary: Template:Sfn#Citation has multiple authors and no date. In this case, we would end up with a callout saying just "Layton" which is a bit terse and would not work well if we end up with other Layton references. I think that in this case we can put the citation in the reflist like other web pages. Doing that now. --Mirokado (talk) 18:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks!--Smerus (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Use of italics for compositions[edit]

I am rather confused about the use of italics for Nielsen's compositions. Some such as the titles of his operas seem to be consistently italicized while others, e.g. the Helios Overture, sometimes are and sometimes are not. For an overview of the inconsistencies, just open the List of works template at the bottom of the page. In the main article, the same titles are also presented with or without italics. If anyone can give precise rules I can sort them out. I suppose where necessary the titles in italics should be extended to the titles of the individual articles.--Ipigott (talk) 09:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Good point. I think in general generic titles ( 'Symphony no. X', 'String Quartet no. x') should be upright, whereas non-generics ('Helios', 'David and Saul', 'Sleep') should be italicised. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Titles for a guide, which includes examples.--Smerus (talk) 10:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Lead photo[edit]

Until fairly recently the lead photo was No. 1.

No. 1 - old

On the grounds that the old one could not be enlarged, it was changed to No. 2. (But see the Danish version of Carl Nielsen here.)

No. 2 - new

I personally prefer the old one. Any other views? Maybe we should try to find another image altogether. There are, for example, lots of interesting new photos in the various sections of Carl Nielsen 2015, a new Danish website specially developed for the anniversary.--Ipigott (talk) 07:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I made the change just as a suggestion - I have no problems with the 'old' picture, particularly if it can be made larger.--Smerus (talk) 08:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the larger size on the Danish wiki is caused by the box. Dr. Blofeld may be able to do something with it - perhaps along the lines of the Chopin article with Nielsen's signature underneath. See File:Carl Nielsen Signature.jpg. The Swedish article has something along these lines.--Ipigott (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Quite agree, I was going to say restore the old photo! Much better. Reminds me of Kevin Keegan in it ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The biography still needs considerable development before this is nommed for GA though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick work on the image. Can you make any specific suggestions on how to improve the biography? There's an enormous amount of material available. Just let me know what the priorities are. Now that the refs have been more or less sorted out, I can devote all my time to the content.--Ipigott (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Just more content and detail biographically, that section is really quite underdeveloped I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I have been looking at the FA-rated articles on composers and see that Bizet, Delius, Shostakovich, Smetana and William Walton are all of similar length. The problem with Carl Nielsen could therefore be the presentation (titles, subtitles, sections on various aspects, etc.) and in my opinion above all the lead which fails to reflect many of the sections in the article. But I'm certainly open to any suggestions for improvement. Perhaps it's time to ping @Tim riley: as he suggested a couple of weeks ago?--Ipigott (talk) 13:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

No, you're judging the overall length. You look at the biographical section coverage in Tim's and Smerus's articles and how much extensive use of books is made. Nielsen does have several biographies and I think they really must be consulted if you want to get this to a top level. For GA, not compulsory though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Two penn'orth from Tim

It is instructive to see the wide range of word counts for FACs of major composers:

  • Lutoslawski – 4,440
  • Messiaen – 4,778
  • Josquin – 5,038
  • Massenet – 5,408
  • Walton – 5,701
  • Warlock – 5,901
  • Stanford – 6,276
  • Alkan – 6,339
  • Bizet – 6,627
  • Fauré – 6,646
  • Shostakovich – 6,789
  • Grainger – 7,370
  • Delius – 7,491
  • Poulenc – 7,680
  • Smetana – 7,833
  • Ravel – 8,213
  • Wagner – 8,359
  • Rimsky – 8,726
  • Tippett – 8,726
  • Chopin – 8,922
  • Holst – 8,966
  • Mahler – 8,975
  • Elgar – 9,971
  • Britten – 10,700
  • Tchaikovsky – 12,613

The word count for Nielsen at 5,378 readable words, by WP's counting tool, is at the low end, but by no means scant measure. But if we're thinking in terms of FAC I'm afraid I have to endorse Dr B's verdict: the biography section is really too short. It weighs in at 1,848 words, compared with 3,872 for Walton, 4,789 for Bizet and 4,570 for Shostakovich, and so on. Naturally one can't judge the adequacy of a section on its length alone: a person who lives a short but uneventful life is plainly likely to need fewer biographical words than a nonagenarian with an incident-packed life. That said, 1,484 is so very short of the typical 4,000-ish words that one would take some convincing that the subject had been covered comprehensively.

I should emphasise that I'm comparing this to FAs, which have got to be comprehensive. If you are looking at GAN, the criterion is that the article "addresses the main aspects of the topic … This requirement is significantly weaker than the 'comprehensiveness' required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics." At a first glance I think the biography section is well within hailing distance of satisfying that criterion. – Tim riley talk 15:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm back in London now with access to my references books so I can also take a look at beefing up the bio. I agree with Tim that we are in the right sort of area for GA. FA would need a lot more work.--Smerus (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
As I have stated elsewhere, I think it is far too late to go for FA by 9 June. Even GA is going to be difficult to hit in time. I do however hope that we can achieve FA during the anniversary year, benefiting from coverage of the concerts, events and critical assessments emerging over the next few months. If the length of the biography section is indeed a valid criterion, I would be happy to add details over the next day or two to fatten it up a bit although Tim's stats indicate that it is already within the general range. I was rather hoping that we could have indications of where the additional effort is required. After Smerus returns from Ukaraine or wherever, we might also be able to benefit from his inputs. But let's now concentrate on GA and see whether we can aim for a DYK on 9 June.--Ipigott (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

External links[edit]

I've been looking through these and think they should be cut back. If there is really useful content in some of them, it could be added to the article. Any suggestions on how to proceed?--Ipigott (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

As there has been no reaction on this, unless Smerus or Tim riley have any objections, I think I will try to reduce the EL to just two or important sites, incorporating any useful info from the existing list into the article. I also wonder whether it would be a good idea to include a section on "Further reading" with recommendations for those who would like to delve deeper into the topic - along the lines of Frederick Delius, etc.--Ipigott (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Carl Nielsen/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 13:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


Starting first read-through. More in a day or so. Tim riley talk 13:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Nothing much here to delay us. A few minor points you may like to consider, but nothing to stand in the way of promotion:

  • Passim
    • "Opus" or "Op."? We have five of the former and seven of the latter. It would be as well to standardise on one or the other. (The latter would be my vote, if anyone is interested.)
    • "—ized" or "—ised" in the main text? We have both. ("—ised" for me, but to each his own).

 Done

  • Lead
    • "under conductor Johan Svendsen" – a pity to disfigure a good article in BrEng with a false title, but it's your call.

 Done

  • Studies and early career
    • "But, in the opinion of David Fanning" – blue-link notwithstanding I'd add a word or two to put Fanning into context: "But, in the opinion of the critic David Fanning" or some such.

 Done

  • Orchestral music
    • "Do we really need a blue link to the sun?

 Done

  • Reception
    • "Unlike his contemporary, the Finn Jean Sibelius, Nielsen's reputation" – I think this could do with "that of" before contemporary.

 Done

    • "28 February 1912, the Third Symphony (Espansiva) was in the repertoire of the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra in Amsterdam" – oh, no it wasn't. The orchestra was not "Royal" until the 1980s.

 Done

    • WP:OVERLINK – do capital cities of major countries (Amsterdam, Stockholm and Helsinki) need to be linked?
    • "In 1988 Nielsen's diaries and his letters…" – two "first times" in one sentence

 Done

    • "Writing in the New Yorker Magazine" – not keen on this: isn't it The New Yorker magazine?
    • In the same sentence, shouldn't "that only now are" be "that only now were"?

 Done

  • Legacy
    • I'm a bit iffy about some of the "wills" in this section. I'm sure you'll keep it up to date, but WP:DATED is still a concern here. Where possible it would be preferable to say rather than the prediction "y will happen in 2015" the documented fact that "in x it was announced that y would happen in 2015".

 Done

  • References
    • Ref 65 looks a bit odd.
      This is indeed a bit odd. It's because I've taken it not directly from the Carl Nielsen Edition (as the article was not accessible outside Denmark) but from a preliminary write-up actially headed Preface.
      I've now clarified that ref, which is to Niels Krabbe's Preface in Carl Nielsen's Voice by Anne Marie Reynolds. (The other preface mentioned also needed to be handled a bit specially). --Mirokado (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Ref 76 wants a page number
      • I don't think so. It refers to the entire book.

That's all from me. Nothing to frighten the horses. I've made a few minor corrections to what I take to be typos, but please check them to see you're happy. Over to you, before we formally cut the ribbon. Tim riley talk 13:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou Tim!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick work and all the encouragement. I agree with everything you suggest and will now make the changes.--Ipigott (talk) 13:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Concluding review[edit]

When I last looked at this article, only a couple of weeks ago, it seemed to me to be there or thereabouts for GA, but since then it has been splendidly transformed. No fewer than three editors have worked on it to get it to it undoubted GA standard, and IMO, a good deal higher: it seems to me to be knocking at the door of FAC. Be that as it may, for present purposes it plainly meets all the GA criteria. I don't feel it necessary to wait till the very minor tweaks agreed above are all in place, so:

Overall summary[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Well referenced.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Well referenced.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Well illustrated.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Well illustrated.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

On to FAC, I hope, though I see you have an anniversary DKY to achieve first. Please keep me posted. Glad to lend any hand that may be wanted. Tim riley talk 14:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Tim, for spotting all the above. All very useful comments. We are indeed hoping to bring the article to FA later in the year when we will no doubt be able to benefit from the celebration performances and reactions to them.--Ipigott (talk) 14:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Congrats to all[edit]

GA! Great work! says GA. - Go for FAC (without PR in between), talk to the delegate (Crisco), it's still a month to go ;) - Improvements now will help readers on his birthday, whether it is TFA that day or not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment, I came across this by accident and am not sure where to post. Firstly, in the lead, is 'stint' a bit informal (his 16 years as violinist)? … … Does 'Nielsen maintained something of the reputation of an outsider during his lifetime' mean he cultivated this reputation, or acquired it? Is 'something of' also a tad informal and vague? Good luck Guys and Gals.Pincrete (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC) … … ps 'Nielsen had three children, two of them illegitimate. He had already fathered a son, Carl August Nielsen, in January 1888, before he met Anne Marie. In 1912, an illegitimate daughter, Rachel Siegmann, was born. With his wife he had two daughters and a son.' … … this appears to be a mistake (2+3?). Pincrete (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Informal peer review[edit]

I've carried out a review of the "Life" section of the article. I'd recommend you deal with these points before you submit at FAC. It'll take me a bit longer to have a detailed look at the "Music" sections:

Lead
  • "...during which he performed Giuseppe Verdi's Falstaff and Otello at their Danish premieres" – I imagine the word "in" needs to precede "Guiseppe Verdi"?
Early years
  • "All the children bore the surname Nielsen despite regulations forbidding the use of patronyms." I don't see much point in including this detail
  • "He learned how to play brass instruments, which provided him with a job as a bugler and alto trombonist in the 16th Battalion of the Danish Army at nearby Odense, which he joined on 1 November 1879." A bit clumsy. I suggest something like: "He learned to play brass instruments, and on 1 November 1879 became a bugler and trombonist in the band of the 16th Battalion of the Danish Army at nearby Odense".
  • "he usually only played it": again, awkward wording. You could lose "usually", or find an alternative wording
  • "He was paid three kroner and 45 øre..." – I'd say "The army paid him three kroner..." etc
Studies and early career
  • " Nielsen sought to ensure that he could be released at a short notice from the military band. In January 1884, he went to Copenhagen for further studies." I'd simplify this: "Nielsem obtained his release at short notice from the military band, and in January 1884 went to Copenhagen".
  • When did Nielsen graduate from the Conservatory? You say he studied there from 1884 to the end of 1886, but the first job you mention is from September 1889. What did he do for three years before then?
  • "he gave violin lessons, made a modest income as a teacher..." – aren't these activities inclusive?
  • Who were these patrons that supported him?
Marriage
  • The first two-and-a-half lines really belong to the previous section.
  • "In Paris, he met the Danish sculptor Anne Marie Brodersen..." Date this?
  • The last sentence of the first paragraph is not presently cited to a source.
  • "Nielsen had already had a child illegitimately before he met Anne Marie, in 1888" Several things: first, I think he "fathered" rather than "had" a child. Also the date information is ambiguous; is this when the child was born, or when he met A-M?
  • I think it's a mistake to go off at a tangent with details of Nielsen's children's careers. If you wan't to include this info I'd tuck it in at the end, in the Legacy section.
  • "Carl sublimated his anger and frustration..." We're calling him Nielsen (I think there's an earlier instance of "Carl", too)
  • "the Nielsens remained married for the remainder of the composer's life." You ought, however, to mention that for much of this time they were separated.
Mature composer
  • Clarify that the pension amount was annual
  • Earlier, you said Nielsen succeeded Svendsen as conductor at the Royal Theatre in 1906. Now, "Between 1905 and 1914 he served as second conductor at the Royal Theatre." The statements don't quite equate.
  • Can you put a date on the "dour" newspaper article?
Final years and death
  • You say Nielsen was buried, but you need to say when and where he died.

Brianboulton (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Brian. Ipigott?♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: I started working on them early this morning. All very useful - just what we need.--Ipigott (talk) 08:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I think I have covered all the above. Maybe someone could double check?--Ipigott (talk) 10:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I actually think the comment about the patronym is important because it explains why he is not called Carl Jørgensen which would be expected.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Music section review[edit]

@Dr. Blofeld:@Ipigott: I am leaving my comments here, rather than on the FAC page where they may cause clutter. I'll try and work through as quickly as I can, in view of the time constraint. This is just a beginning, on the introductory section.

  • The first paragraph begins with "The Danish sociologist Benedikte Brincker makes the point that the perception of Nielsen and his music by Danes is rather different from that of the world outside Denmark." This needs a citation; also I'd say "observes" rather than "makes the point", and probably try to avoid "Danish/Danes/Denmark" in a single sentence.
  • Later in the paragraph we have "Krabbe describes..." without being told who Krabbe is; later still he becomes "Niels Krabbe", but we're no wiser who he is/was.
  • The whole first paragraph looks under-cited.
  • Apart from these technical details, I don't think this introductory para adequately summarises Nielsen's musical style, being more concerned with different perceptions of the kind of composer Nielsen was. Most of this material probably belongs in the "Reception" section rather than here. What I think would be more useful here is a succinct summary of Nielsen's musical character. Harold Schonberg does this rather well, in his (very) brief reference to Nielsen in Lives of the Great Composers: Vol. II in which he says: "The thing that most impresses about [Nielsen's music] is its breadth. The man thought big. His rhythms are energetic, his melodies are long-breathed, his orchestration is generous. There is a great deal of individuality". Schonberg then made a comparison with Sibelius: "Nielsen had just as much sweep, even more power, and a more universal message". (Futura Publications, London 1975, p. 94 ISBN0860077233)
  • To this sweeping vista could be added how Nielsen's style changed over the years. Reading such sources as I have, I get the impression that around 1912-14 was a fairly pivotal period in his development. Fanning mentions his Second Violin Sonata of 1912 as "a watershed piece which deliberately turns away from the solid stability achieved in the Third Symphony and Violin Concerto and prepares the way for his tougher late style". Fanning further cites Commotio as showing Nielsen "on the threshold of new stylistic worlds which death prevented him from exploring". I feel that these and other observations could be fashioned into a summary paragraph that better encapsulates Nielsen's compositional life.
Very useful suggestions. I'll try to put something together.--Ipigott (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 13:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

"Further reading"[edit]

Is there any reason or justification for the Googlebooks links to the titles in this section? They don't seem to add anything, and they rather scream out. We don't give such links to the titles in the "References" section. I've not seen such links used anywhere else.--Smerus (talk) 19:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

and furthermore, now that I have removed those that are already in 'Sources', we are left with three Danish publications that will not generally be accessible to English readers - how do we justify adding these as 'further reading' - who says that they are relevant or appropriate? Only the Jensen book, for example, is in the bibliography of the Nielsen article in Grove Music Online, and that book is 25 years old. Is it really appropriate to recommend these books to English Wikipedia readers? What is the point of listing them here? --Smerus (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Further reading items should be well justified, and I think the default number is 0. I support removing.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Illustrations[edit]

Several of the images which were recently included in the article have now been removed, mainly as there was no evidence of publication and were therefore not accepted as public domain in the United States. I have now discovered there is an illustrated biography which no doubt contains several of these images and a number of portraits: "Carl Nielsen 1865-1931. En billedbiografi. A pictorial biography", Johannus Fabricius. Maybe one of our Danish friends would like to check this out. If not, I'll research it myself when I return to Denmark in August.--Ipigott (talk) 08:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

  • You'll have to note the year of publication as well... — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
@Crisco 1492: Yes, I realize that (there are in fact several early editions) but I have discovered there are several early publications on Nielsen with photographs. A few days ago, I even found a published portrait photograph of Nielsen from c.1920 in an old Danish encyclopaedia I have here in Luxembourg but I didn't want to create any trouble when we were almost at the end of the FAC procedure. If I am in doubt, I know Nikkimaria (and you yourself) will be there to help. I'm now also hoping to bring Jean Sibelius up to standard for his 150th anniversary on 8 December.--Ipigott (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

TFA[edit]

Congrats, everyone, on getting this promoted. As promised, I've scheduled it for TFA on 9 June. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It's been a real pleasure to work with you on this, Chris. Sincere thanks for your encouragement.--Ipigott (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations everyone. I know I really only contributed in very minor ways, and there are tons of people who did mountains of work, but it was amazing seeing this article really explode into something of such high quality, even if I really didn't have the time to contribute more than a couple minor edits. Good job to those who really put in the hard work. Jonahman10 (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Lead photo again[edit]

The photo used in the lead is scanned from a book and suffers a bit from the grid artefact in the book (a result of the printing method) and rather low contrast. I have uploaded an adjusted version in the hope that we can decide to use it instead:

Portrait photograph of a smartly dressed Nielsen
Carl Nielsen photographed in 1917
Nielsen's signature, clearly readable
Portrait photograph of a smartly dressed Nielsen
Carl Nielsen photographed in 1917
Nielsen's signature, clearly readable
  • left – as originally uploaded
  • right – adjusted
  • @We hope: You dealt with the original, is this new file description OK?
This is fine-you've copied the links to the book and noted that this is a derivative of the original. The first page of the book that proves it's from 1917 was uploaded to that. Anyone who wants/needs to know is directed to the original where they can see the book's first page. We hope (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Dank: if we decide to use the adjusted version, we should also update the headshot in the tfa paragraph: File:Carl Nielsen 1917 crop.jpg. I can provide a corresponding version of that too.

Any comments? --Mirokado (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. I have updated the cropped image for the tfa paragraph and changed the image used in the article. --Mirokado (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Encylopedia or Advertisement?[edit]

The entire section that I've pasted below reads more like an advertisement of current and future events. Does it really belong in Wikipedia right now? I say absolutely "no". Once all of the information below becomes historical then it will be appropriate to add to the article. As it is, this whole paragraph wrecks the article in my opinion. I think it should be removed for now.--EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The section in question, moved up for context:

Several special events have been scheduled on or around 9 June 2015 to commemorate the 150th anniversary of Nielsen's birth. In addition to many performances in Denmark, concerts were programmed in cities across Europe, including London, Leipzig, Kraków, Gothenburg, Helsinki and Vienna, and even further afield in Japan, Egypt and New York. For 9 June, Nielsen's birthday, the Danish National Symphony Orchestra announced a programme in Copenhagen's DR Concert Hall featuring Hymnus amoris, the Clarinet Concerto and Symphony No. 4 for a broadcast extending across Europe and the United States. The Danish Royal Opera has programmed Maskaradeand a new production (directed by David Pountney) of Saul og David. During 2015, the Danish Quartet has scheduled performances of Nielsen's string quartets in Denmark, Israel, Germany, Norway and the UK (at the Cheltenham Music Festival). In the UK, the BBC Philharmonic has prepared a concert series on Nielsen beginning on 9 June in Manchester. Nielsen's Maskarade overture will also be the first item for the opening night of the 2015 BBC Promenade Concerts in London, while his compositions feature in five other concerts of the Prom season. The city of Odense, which has strong connections with Nielsen, has developed an extensive programme of concerts and cultural events for the anniversary year.

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
You are extraordinairement incorrect. The article underwent a detailed review for FA - in which you did not participate - and no editor agreed with you. WP:IDONTLIKE is not a reason for excision. By the way, your edits of tense were very confusing; please think twice before making such edits, particularly in an article which has been rated FA. And don't please copy links to Notes on to the talk page - as you see this makes the page very confusing. You need only to indicate the paragraph which concerns you.--Smerus (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Can I also gently point out that it is rather a chutzpah for you to claim on your userpage that you have contributed to making Carl Nielsen a Featured Article? You have I believe never edited it before today.--Smerus (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say I helped to make it a featured article. I said I've contributed to it (after it went on the air). The "detailed review for FA" was pathetic, I'm sorry to say, considering the number of errors (as in words missing) that I fixed, and the punctuation was wholly substandard. By the way, your commentary toward me personally is anything but "gentle". It is more like right in my face. I didn't particularly care for the "extraordinairement" commentary.--EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Then I advise you do not call yourself 'extraordinaire' - you will reduce the risk of other wicked souls like me making the same cheap crack. Best,--Smerus (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
You are a wicked soul, I can sense it in your every word. For once we agree. Best, --EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
And you are clearly a complete asshole.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Calm down ·maunus, there is no need for foul language. I have no animosity toward Smerus, I simply answered his facetious comment with an equally facetious comment of my own. --EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • There is no particular problem with the section in question as long as it is edited soon to reflect that the events have passed - and possibly removing reference to any that proved not particularly notable.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Michael W. Parker for your interest in the article and for your edits. I realize the details of the celebration concerts may seem a little premature but I think an article in connection with a 150th anniversary should at least be supported by a few details of the concerts programmed in key locations. The tenses were carefully reviewed during discussions on FAC but, as Maunus suggests should be revised to reflect events which have actually taken place. I will try to take care of this. I note that one or two of your edits may well be in conflict with the revisions made during the review process, for example the spacing of the suspension points, but I really don't have time to go into all the detail now. I hope we will be able to work together in future on this and other articles, especially if we share an interest in music.--Ipigott (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
We do share an interest in music. And thank you for the nice explanation. As it is the article looks great and is fully worthy of FA status, thanks to your efforts and those of other editors. It is a true team effort here on Wikipedia to deliver a fine article such as this one. Mentioning the future celebratory events isn't really a problem as long as it is edited for historical context later. It feels good knowing I had a small part in making this article even better. --EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations![edit]

Congratulations to all the contributors to this featured article. You deserve a lot of applause, recognition and appreciation. What a wonderful article.

  Bfpage |leave a message  20:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Bfpage for your praise and your interest. I'm no expert on bacteria but I see we share an interest in art. Hope to see you around.--Ipigott (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
You are quite welcome and deserving of whatever recognition that I can give you. It is an enormous effort to make it to featured status and I can't even bring myself to even consider making such an effort. As for an interest in art...thank you so much. I have a gallery in Pittsburgh but stay out of the art articles as much as I can because of COI, www.barbarafrenchpage.com ismy artist page. If giving you my url is inappropriate, please delete the link. Best Regards,
  Bfpage |leave a message  17:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I hope you won't mind, but...[edit]

I've found a high-resolution, excellent - and, so far as I can tell, copyright-free-in-all-territories - photograph of Nielsen in 1908. I think it'll be a better lead image, don't you? =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Please post it here first (as I did recently too). Difficult to respond without seeing it... --Mirokado (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Um... Heh... File:Carl_Nielsen_c._1908.jpg File:Carl Nielsen c. 1908 - Restoration.jpg - it's far sharper, has an unambiguous copyright state, and probably featureable. =) The other image would be good as a secondary image, but I think it better to start with the highest-resolution image. Plus, the 1917 image faces right, which is a little awkward to have right-aligned. It has some colour to it, but that's authentic; I'd say to leave that. Could darken it slightly, as that's just an exposure tweak, doesn't affect authenticity. A few minor stains; those could be easily edited away, indeed, I probably will have by tomorrow this moment now. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I like this.--Smerus (talk) 10:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I like to try and get a featured picture for new FAs when something suitable's available =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry to have to intervene on this but the original photo was one of those which was rejected during the FAC on copyright grounds, if I remember correctly. For the moment I've reverted to the former lead photo. But perhaps Nikkimaria could take a new look at your restored image and let us know if there are still copyright problems. I realize the photographer died over 90 years ago. I am returning to Denmark in a couple of weeks and hope to check out early illustrated biographies of Nielsen as the initial date of publication appears to be needed in many cases.--Ipigott (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Did you read the section of the file description page showing - with evidence - that it was being distributed as a carte de visite in 1908? Widespread distribution counts as publication. Further, the Danish copyright rules do not require publication to start the copyright timer counting down in the first place. Kind of annoyed - I spent some time with Crisco 1492 making sure the copyright status would hold up. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Adam's right - if it was distributed in 1908, it's fine copyright-wise, and he's got evidence of that. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
An excellent image. Is that a silver cane he's carrying? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I shouldn't like to speculate material from a black and white photograph, even if it is technically black and yellow. It's certainly a very nice cane, though. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I've reinserted the image; since we have a carte de visite from 1908, we've got the proof of publication we were lacking during FAC. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden: Glad to see all this has been sorted out and we have the go ahead from the right people. Your enhanced image is certainly a considerable improvement on what we had before. My apologies for being over-cautious. I'm a novice at these copyright problems.--Ipigott (talk) 13:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Don't worry about it. I probably should have linked to where I discussed copyright with Crisco right away, which would have avoided this. Just came as a bit of a surprise, but, thinking about it, I work with images a lot; you don't, so you not spotting the carte de visite thing being important is hardly a surprise. My fault! =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Image note[edit]

I found larger copies of three of the images. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. Can you upload them with source info, etc.--Ipigott (talk) 09:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Already did. One was from the same source, justt he larger version was missed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
For the record, File:Carl Nielsen - 1879.jpg, File:Carl Nielsen family at Fuglsang, Lolland.jpg, and - while admittedly not much better - File:Saul og David (Carl Nielsen),, Stockholm 1931.jpg. I might do a little cleanup on the second image if you think it's worth it - could get rid of the pale vignetting easy enough.
I've also updated the filename on the first of those three - I found a reliable source for 1879, as opposed to circa 1880. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Any further improvements to the images would be great. Thanks for your interest and expertise.--Ipigott (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
@Ipigott: Don't think there's much to be done with Saul og David unless it gets released elsewhere a bit larger, and I already did the 1879 image - not big enough to feature, but looking pretty good I think.
Let's talk about the family one, then. There's three ways to do it: We could crop it left right and top, which would tighten the focus on his family, and remove a lot of the damaged parts. However, that draws focus away from the manor behind them, and that manor is significant. A second option would be crop left and right, leave the top, which crops the least interesting parts of the manor. The third is to fix the fading left and right, copy the patch of shadowed ground over the rip lower left, fix that little bit of damage at the top, and keep the crop as it is.
None of these is particularly hard, really: difficulty is usually somewhat proportional to image size, and this is not that big. With a photo like this - not particularly artistic, but with a lot of illustrative value, I think it's reasonable enough to crop it in whatever way best brings out the information you want it to convey: Thumbnails have a constant width, so any cropping on the left and right will make anything not cropped show up a bit bigger in the article, but, of course, we lose the bits we crop. Note: I can do all three of these, and let you pick. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden: It seems to me you are far more expert than I am on providing the best possible solution and in any case, others such as Smerus might also have a preference. And while I'm here, you might be interested to learn I am now working on Jean Sibelius which we hope to improve for his 150th anniversary in December. Maybe you could take a look at the photos there, see whether there are any copyright problems, and perhaps enhance them along the same lines? Absolutely no rush on this, Unlike our last minute spurt on Nielsen, for this we still have lots of time.--Ipigott (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'm not going to make any great claims for it, but the family image looks a bit better now. Flipping back and forth between https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/f/fe/20150620213634!Carl_Nielsen_family_at_Fuglsang%2C_Lolland.jpg and https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Carl_Nielsen_family_at_Fuglsang%2C_Lolland.jpg being the easiest way to see what I did. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Well done, you have improved the image without being heavy handed. --Mirokado (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Aye. I'd try to do more, but, frankly, with a low-res image and a lot of damage, it's often best just to remove distractions, and not try to do too much.. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Carl Nielsen c. 1908 - Restoration.jpg is now featured.[edit]

Thought you'd be pleased to know. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Definitely pleased! This is the review. --Mirokado (talk) 00:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Organizing References[edit]

I think, it's better to reorganize the sources. The Scores could be separated.

Proposal for Structure:

Sources[edit]

Books and Articles[edit]

  • All sources

Scores[edit]

  • Carl Nielsen Edition

178.200.103.17 (talk) 10:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. The Carl Nielsen Edition consists of both scores and commentary. It is the commentary we are referencing, which is whe all the citations are currently together. A problem with separating just the CNE sources woudld be that the positioning would appear to be giving them a special status. They are grouped in the citations because the short references refer to the edition and titles: the reason for that was to avoid long lists of authors in the "short" references. --Mirokado (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

"Greatest"[edit]

Now, I don't doubt Nielsen's importance, but is it an encyclopedia's task to appoint anyone a "greatest" ephitet? Moreover, aren't we comparing apples to oranges here? How are we going to compare Nielsen in "greatness" to, say, Gade or Hartmann? Would it not be preferable to speak of "one of the most significant" instead? But I'd like to hear opinions. --Ilja.nieuwland (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes you're quite right, although I think he really is the greatest. Nielsen comes first, together with Buxtehude who happens to be claimed by the Germans as well, then there is a wide gap, and then we have Langgaard or Holmboe or Gade... Anyway, I changed the word "greatest" for you into "most prominent". Which he is... Hartenhof (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Much appreciated. I'm not saying he isn't the "greatest", but I'm not too comfortable with such epithets since they are bound to personal preference, time, and cultural influence. Arguably, for instance, Gade was more famous in his days than Nielsen was in his. And let's not forget there was a time when many in Germany regarded Reger as the "greatest" living German composer. Again, not saying that he wasn't, but that's very far from modern perception. --Ilja.nieuwland (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Symphony No.3 title[edit]

In the original 1913 score, the word "espansiva" is not capitalised. A minor issue perhaps, but this is a FA. Just saying ... 94.226.68.239 (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Carl Nielsen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Carl Nielsen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Carl Nielsen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carl Nielsen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carl Nielsen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. The website has been updated and I could not find a search box! Perhaps this page will reappear later. --Mirokado (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)