Talk:Clara Schumann

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
High traffic

On September 13, 2012, Clara Schumann was linked from Google, a high-traffic website. (See visitor traffic)

Creating a stand-alone compositions page[edit]

I'm separating out Clara Schumann's compositions from her biography page. At first, these new articles will likely just be basic facts from the scores, but over the next few days, I hope to flesh as many of them out with background context as possible. I'm still new to Wikipedia, though, and I hope I'm doing this correctly! CherylFM (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Her talent[edit]

this page doesn't objectively address the talent of Clara or why she quit composing (ie internalized and cultural oppression). I made these changes and they dissappeared shortly


What's up the random sources? It'd be nice to know what part of the article they pertain to. Ijustam 06:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


I wonder how people would feel if the entire page is moved to the title Clara Wieck Schumann instead of just Clara Schumann? While I acknowledge that much of her career revolved around performance of her husband's work, as the article mentions, Clara [Wieck, not yet] Schumann was a brilliant concert pianist from age thirteen, six years before her marriage to Robert.

Melizabethfleming 19:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No details given about how her children died or how she was able to parent 7 children with a mentally unstable husband and some of her children ailing. ?

Why do you write anything about the children ? 4 of them died before her parents (1 in infancy, 3 in the late teens) and 4 outlived there parents.

The names are: Marie, Elise, Julie, Emil, Ferdinand, Ludwig, Eugenie and Felix. Emil died in infancy, Julie and Felix of tuberculosis and Ferdinand of taking drugs. Andrea - -- (talk) 11:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

POV bit[edit]

Could anyone try to make the following excerpt a bit more NPOV?

Despite gaining greater recognition, her music is often described as "intimate" or "personal." Such descriptions are common for the work of female artists who are stereotyped as creating personal, introspective art; whereas men's art is considered universal and introspective. This is seen clearly when Chopin's work is described as "intensely emotional" instead of "intimate" or "personal." As is also common of female artists, she is often referred to by her first name and probably her last name, while her husband is by default Schumann. -Missmarple 19:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Robert's(?) Piano Concerto in A[edit]

I'm listening to this again for the first time in some years. I have never been able to get my mind around the idea that this is Schumann. It doesn't sound like his other piano music to me or much like the symphonies. It's not like it's an early work or something. The much more sophisticated Kreisleriana (1836) and Fantasy (1838) preceded it. My Groves says it was written in 1841 and 1845, premiered in 1846 by Clara. Could it be that it is actually written by Clara and passed of as Robert's so it would be heard? Robert and Clara were married in 1841.

--Dave Yost 19:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The Piano Concerto in A minor, op. 54 is most definitely Schumann's work, ROBERT that is. I have no idea why you would think this work was "ghost written" by Clara. It certainly sounds like Schumann to me! In any case, it would have made more sense for the reverse to be true. In the late 1830's and early 1840's it was Clara's name NOT Robert's that was famous as a musician. At this time, Robert was better known as a music critic for his journal, Neue Zeitschrift für Musik.

This concerto gave Schumann considerable trouble and it went through a few changes before he finally came to settle on the form we know it today. It initially was written as a Phantasie for piano and orchestra in one movement. I believe there are still sketches of this work in Robert's hand extant as well as numerous references to his work-in-progress in his correspondence. I hope this info puts your doubts to rest.

- El Chileno Chido 04:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

In any case, we would need an external source if we wanted to say anything about this. We couldn't do any original research and come up with a different composer from the one that appears in every reference book. JackofOz 03:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:100-DEM-OBV-154x74.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:100-DEM-OBV-154x74.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 01:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Who was she[edit]

what is she about where was her birth at?Some of us want to know these kind of things?????????????????????????????????//// —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"what is she about where was her birth at?" - you're never going to get the answer to that question (I assume it's intended to be a question), because it's completely incomprehensible. Sorry. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Who was the other pianist at her last concert?[edit]

If "the last work she played was Brahms's Variations on a Theme by Haydn, in the piano-duet version", who was the other pianist? -- JackofOz (talk) 11:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I finally tracked it down. It was James Kwast. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

User : deleted portions of text[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Clara Schumann , did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.Thomas W. Jefferson (talk) 08:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Thomas W. Jefferson (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Clara Schumann page (again) vandalized by this User[edit]

User: You have just vandalized the article on Clara Schumann. You are cordially asked not to do this again. Please make constructive contributions to articles on Wikipedia. Thank you! If this happens again your behaviour will be reported.Thomas W. Jefferson (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Clara Wieck's piano concerto[edit]

The original wording of the article reads as, " At age fourteen she wrote her first piano concerto ". As there aren't any other piano concerti by Clara Wieck Schumann, I deleted the "first". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akdoganerkan (talkcontribs) 13:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 September 2012[edit]

Goat fucking? Really? Please remove that line. (talk) 08:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Already done. It was only there for a minute or so. The article has now been temporarily semi-protected. Favonian (talk) 09:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Woman Composer[edit]

I'm somewhat surprised that there isn't some sort of section dedicated to Clara's influence as a woman composer. Perhaps not even "a" woman composer, but, for her time, "THE" woman composer! I would like to recommend that some space be dedicated to highlighting this. It's already mentioned in passing on the page, but I think that this perspective could vastly increase the depth of this article. What were her struggles as a woman composer? (one of the quotes points at this...) What was her influence as a woman composer? What did her husband think of this? What did society think of this? Was she encouraged, or discouraged by those around her?

There are books dedicated to the study of Clara Schumann as the first prominent woman composer -- so those could do for references... Sir Ian (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

A near-contemporary of Clara's, Fanny Mendelssohn, sister of Felix, was another rather important woman composer. And historically, centuries before there had been Hildegarde von Bingen, a leading composer (not only woman composer) of her era. The Kapralova Society collects some information on women composers. I would say that Fanny got more discouragement than Clara did. Some compositions of Fanny's were represented as being Felix's until once Felix had to admit shamefacedly (to Queen Victoria) what had happened. Marlindale (talk) 04:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
That's very interesting. I'm guessing the society is named after Vítězslava Kaprálová? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

relationship with brahms[edit]

it is clear (at least from the article on brahms) that there was a significant personal relationship with brahms the elaboration of which would add greatly to the article about clara — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Through the end of 2013 or so, the relationship was unclear in the Brahms article, which up to sometime a few months ago listed at least one unreliable source, which claimed that all correspondence between Clara and Brahms had been destroyed. That had been Brahms's intention, but it was far from carried out by Clara, as two thick volumes of correspondence in German had been preserved and published. Still, for a slow German reader, it was laborious although possible to get information. A handier reference and especially relevant to this article on Clara is the Litzmann biography of Clara based on diaries and letters, translated into English. The book is already cited in one footnote in this article. By listing it as a Source it might be easier to make multiple references to it. Also, the violinist Joseph Joachim was another good friend of Clara, and they did a lot of concertizing together in England and some elsewhere. Some sentences in the article on Joachim may belong more here than there and others might be mentioned both places. I had been holding off on editing this article on Clara, thinking that the omission of such a such a big factor in her life as her friendship with Brahms must be intentional. If anyone watching this article did feel that way, please have a look at the Brahms and Joachim articles as they now are and let me know. When I have a chance (I also work on some other articles in parallel) and if it will not be stepping on anyone's toes, I will make some edits in this article. Marlindale (talk) 03:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I added just a little bit suggesting that there might have been something, based on the nature of the letters. I didn't want to add too much as I also was not able to read the German texts directly. --Mammagamma (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Brahms's first piano concerto[edit]

The article until now said under "Later career" that she "played a particular role in restoring Brahms's D minor concerto to the general repertory; it had fallen out of favour after its premiere, and was only rehabilitated in the 1870s, thanks mainly to the efforts of Clara ... and Brahms himself." I'm afraid there are several things wrong with this. One is the reference, a sleeve note. I tried to verify it in a primary source, Litzmann (vol. 2) biography of Clara based on diaries and letters, and in sources about Brahms. Instead I found that of the first five public performances of the concerto, only one, the third, in Brahms's home city of Hamburg, had been a success. So the concerto had not yet been in favor by the 1870s. During that decade Brahms and Clara each performed the solo part once publicly. It was brought into the general repertory rather in performances by Hans von Bülow, beginning in 1882. He was well situated to do so as a concert pianist and conductor of an orchestra, the Berlin Philharmonic. He went on concert tours, playing the concerto. There are things that can be said about Clara's relation to the concerto as it was being written, which I hope to get to later, but I'm going to delete the inaccurate paragraph. Marlindale (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

In what years did Clara take concert tours to England?[edit]

Before I began editing this article, it mentioned 1856, but not 1857 in which she also went. But then from about 10 years later, it made rather precise statements such as all but 4 years in a certain span of decades. These were not documented. One could probably find a lot from systematic search of Litzmann, but I don't plan to do that. There is also information from the St. James's hall programmes. I will look over Litzmann and pick out some trips if they seem more interesting than others. By the way I believe Clara toured to Russia just once (no, twice) Marlindale (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Reich, 2001, p. 267, lists countries and years of tours. Russia, 1844 and 1864. Some summary information will be put in the article. Marlindale (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

What to include in repertoire?[edit]

I had thought to include sonatas for violin and piano, but I saw that Beethoven's which have WP articles are called "Violin Sonata no. 5 (Beethoven)" or the like, so it seems the violin owns these more than the piano does. I guess I won't list those. Similarly also for cello and piano sonatas, or any single other instrument and piano? I do plan to include pieces for two pianos or piano four hands, piano quartets (with three strings), and piano quintets (with four strings). Marlindale (talk) 04:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

"Quotations" section[edit]

I have removed the "Quotations" section, as WP is not a collection of quotations not used in the article body text. —George8211 / T 20:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

There were just two quotations, one by Clara herself and one by Robert. It does seem unusual to have such a section, and I don't see a reason to keep these quotations. Marlindale (talk) 00:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

If you are looking to build consensus, you have my support here. It was not a violation of policy, and added value to the article. ScrpIronIV 13:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
@Marlindale and ScrapIronIV: I see your reasoning. I'm going to see if I can put them back as part of prose, rather then on their own. Thoughts? —George8211 / T 14:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I have no issues with that, although - from an aesthetics standpoint - an external quotation can be as valuable as an image. Just food for thought. ScrpIronIV 15:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
In WP:LONGQUOTE it says sternly "Do not insert any number of quotations in a stand-alone quote section", but if they're in the other sections it should be fine I think. —George8211 / T 15:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely; in the same way I would avoid putting an image into its own section. I think we are on the same page. My only point is that it would be a net loss to bury a lovely quote in the middle of a wall of text; but I can see that it's not what you menat. ScrpIronIV 15:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I've tried putting them back. —George8211 / T 15:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Orchestras in London, 19th century[edit]

The article mentions two, London Philharmonic Society and the New Philharmonic Society. It seems that the Philharmonic Society of London was formed in 1813 and changed its name to Royal Philharmonic Society in 1912. The New Philharmonic Society can be found under Wikisource, A Dictionary of Music and Musicians, by George Grove, vol. 2, MacMillian, London, 1900, as existing 1852 to 1879. How best should one refer to the latter orchestra? Marlindale (talk) 00:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Which if any YouTubes to include among External Links?[edit]

If the title of the "March" is in German, shouldn't it be 'Marsch"? It and the Scherzo have no CDS that I could find. But according to the Legacy section, the Scherzo was "popular" and was in her early repertoire. Her Trio in G minor was 'probably her masterpiece" according to George Hall's short bio in Oxford Companion to Music. It has several CDs. There is a YouTube of the Trio but I found it only preceded by publicity for a commercial product. Marlindale (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Do we want what was popular in her own lifetime or what's popular now? Piano variations looks pretty popular, apparently by Micaela Gelius, but uncredited, so not ideal. Also near the top of the ToyTunes popularity list is this by Jozef De Beenhouwer from 2011, but it does go on for an hour and a quarter. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Here's the Adante from the G minor trio, Op. 17. Here's a live version, by the Galos Piano Trio at St Martin-in-the-Fields in May 2015. And here's another extract by Gelius, Krstic and Haack. No adverts in sight for UK viewers for any of these three? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Drawing of [Clara] Schumann (date unknown)?[edit]

I'm not sure if the drawing belongs in the section of text where it is, in other words, 1856 or later. Without a date, the drawing may not be useful?

The book Reich (2001) has Illustrations listed on p viii including several pictures of Clara. I don't see the drawing in our article among them. Some to consider: p. 105 with Robert, 1847; p. 140 with daughter Marie, about 1845. Marie was born in 1841 and so would have been about age 4. Marlindale (talk) 04:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Another drawing in Reich p. 74 is of "Clara Wieck, age 20, shortly before her marriage." I agree with the change from "Schumann" to "Clara" in our caption, but again, the drawing may not be useful if we can't tell if it was made before the marriage or after? Marlindale (talk) 05:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Is the drawing on p.74 is a different one? I think the one we currently have is useful, even without knowing it's exact date. But I agree that makes it difficult to place in the article. Many articles have images that are wholly undated. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
The drawing with "date unknown" is different from any of those which are illustrations in Reich (2001). I tried Google for images of Clara Schumann. Under 1819-1896/1996 [100th anniversary of her death],, is a page "Clara '96 at'. But I couldn't yet find any date or her age in the "date unknown" drawing although it is there. Anyhow, where should it go in the article? Maybe somewhere near "Marriage to Robert"? Marlindale (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Done. Marlindale (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

one of the most distinguished pianists of the Romantic era - citation needed[edit]

I've been looking for a citation. I found about Liszt, that he "was regarded by many as the supreme piano virtuoso of the 19th century" (Kenneth Hamilton,Oxford Companion to Music, 2002, p. 298). But it seems Liszt stopped giving concerts in 1848; Mendelssohn died in 1847 and Chopin in 1849 (Reich, 2001, p. 256). It seems Clara gave virtuoso recitals while young but later aimed more at presenting music by leading composers. Another competitor I suppose is Hans von Bǖlow. Marlindale (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Supplied a citation from Reich: during the time after Robert's death, "hailed as one of the top pianists of the world" Marlindale (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Why cut first name Clara from caption of last image?[edit]

I didn't see a reason, have I overlooked something? Marlindale (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Only WP:last name, given that the subject is obvious from the name of the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I looked at the WP article Eleanor Roosevelt which has rather a lot of images of her, sometimes with others. In the captions, in the great majority of cases, she is called "Roosevelt." So I'll agree with the usage. Marlindale (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure there are many such examples. Images offer little chance of confusion with famous husbands. And in this case there are no sisters or daughters either, to worry about. Some lead images in info boxes do without the name altogether and just have a date and/or location. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

"Clara Trio" YouTube may be misidentified[edit]

"Trio No. 1" may be Robert's. I 'll continue looking into it but maybe others can too. Marlindale (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I found on the Web two YouTubes of Clara's G minor trio, which does seem to be a different piece. So I guess in fact "Trio no. 1" is Robert's.Marlindale (talk) 06:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC) Confirmed that "Trio No. 1" is Robert's, in opening credits of that YouTube so deleted it and replaced it by one of Clara's trio. Marlindale (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Clara Schumann. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Dead link removed and replaced by reference to Reich book. Marlindale (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Doctor Who - portrayal in film?[edit]

Under Portrayals in Film, there is a paragraph on Doctor Who, a long-running BBC series. It is said that the character Clara Oswald in two (or more?) seasons is "loosely based" on Clara Schumann. How loosely? Closely enough to be called a portrayal? No citations are given in the paragraph. The long article Doctor Who indicates that the BBC series was quite notable. It has 191 footnotes at this writing. Time travel (sci-fi) is part of the plot format of the series. Maybe more than one citation would be needed in or for the paragraph, and/or the paragraph might be revised to be more verifiable? Marlindale (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Doctor Who has a lot of sub-articles. In Clara Oswald about the fictional character, I don't see any relation to Clara Schumann beyond the name "Clara". Clara Oswald says she is "initially presented three distinct, though similarly named, people living in different eras of time. The first two incarnations, Oswin Oswald and Clara Oswin Oswald, die during the episode in which they appear. The third incarnation Clara Oswald becomes the Doctor's companion, traveling with him [through time and space] for the remainder of the series as he tries to uncover the mystery of her multiple lives. The mystery is later resolved in "The Name of the Doctor"" (2013), 18 May, the 13th and final episode of the 7th series. Anyhow for a valid reference, a review would be preferable to a WP article, avoiding WP:CIRCULAR. Critic Michael Hogan of The Telegraph 18 May 2013 wrote "we were at last told the truth about companion Clara" (acted by Jenna-Louise Coleman). "She was 'the impossible girl, born to save the Doctor'." What if anything does she have to do with Clara Schumann, please? Marlindale (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I looked for 2014-2015 material. First, "Me" is not a pronoun but an alternate name of the fictional character Ashildr. Clara is said to be a time-travelling school teacher from 21st century England. Clara is said to die in the episode Face the Raven, broadcast 21 November 2015, the 10th episode of the 9th series. "Clara mentions having a romantic relationship with writer Jane Austen". Her life span 1775-1817 did not overlap with Clara Schumann's 1819-1896. Still haven't found a relation between the real and science-fictional Claras. Macmarl (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clara Schumann. 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.

☑Y 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clara Schumann. 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.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


Calling a subject by their first name throughout the article seems a bit disrespectful. Given the problem that she often needs to be distinguished from her husband and father, it is acceptable to a certain degree, but I tried to avoid it when not needed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs) 15:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I will be reviewing this article over the next couple days, potentially making minor copyedits or fixes to the wikicode. I will also gradually fill out my review here. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Overall progress[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:



This article is fairly well written and extensive in its coverage. However, there are a few important issues that need to be resolved, mainly with regards to the article's sourcing. All things considered, nice work! Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and the copy-editing! I'll look below, but will need time. I didn't write most of the article, so will have to look into things slowly. I will respond sooner where I know a quick answer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Verifiability & citations
  • In the "Concert tours" section, on the third paragraph: Marie also wrote: "For the longer journeys we had a saloon [car], comfortably furnished with arm-chairs and sofas... the journey ... was very comfortable." On this occasion, the musicians were not "treated as inferiors". Source?
    easy will add. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
    Adding was not so easy, - the book wasn't yet among the sources, and I will use it in harvard citation, to be able to point to individual pages. Inconsistency for a while, I'm afraid. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
    A good source would be the latest biography by Beatrix Borchartdt, but I don't have it. Anybody? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
    ... but at least I found her earlier book which may help with the sourcing questions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The fourth paragraph of the "Concert tours" section is unsourced.
    Can't find a ref for that, sorry, dropped. Found something good, however. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The fourth paragraph of the "Family life" section is unsourced.
    It's sourced now - more or less a summary of other facts anyway - but for the last line which is not crucial and commented out until I happen to find something. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The source for the second paragraph of the "Performance repertoire" section needs some page number(s) or a more exact method of identifying where the information came from.
    Finally something easy: p 79. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
    Sorry, I'm not trying to make this too difficult. ;) Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    It's not you ;) - The sourcing makes it difficult. Much of it offline, and the same book quoted in different editions, with different page numbering. - Almost better to write something from scratch ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The "Compositions" section needs citations for some of the material, especially the quotes and claims like "Today her compositions are increasingly performed and recorded.", to pass Wikipedia:Verifiability.
    I'll look for citations. Her compositions were not recorded at all, and now they are. That's probably not what you want to heare but true ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
    Please look again. The Reich ref has a complete lists of her works, and I found also another to support the "once forgotten, now played again", BBC on International women's day ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    Looks good now! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The third paragraph of the "Impact during her lifetime" section claims "She was also instrumental in getting the works of Robert Schumann recognized, appreciated and added to the repertoire. She promoted his works tirelessly throughout her life." This needs a source.
    Where to look? Its sort of a summary of that she encouraged him to compose, played his works, edited them for publication, and all this is sourced, - what else? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
    same Reich --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    Also looks good. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • What makes "" a reliable source? It does appear that some of the founders and other higher-ups have PhD's, so it could be a reasonable source for noncontroversial or minor claims.
    Will move it to external links and replace, after some RL. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
    Not today. Will first have to find better sources for her education. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
    that one is gone --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • What makes "" a reliable source? The claim it's supporting is suspect, so is Maria Popova qualified to make this claim?
    The claim that it's hard to tell where between friendship and love the relationship of Clara Schumann and Brahms can be described, is not "suspect", but as above, will look for a better source. More tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
    How is this? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
    That definitely looks like a better source. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    Fine, will use (but not immediately)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    used now --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks for changing to a reliable source! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I'd appreciate help from Jmar67. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I will look at points below. Jmar67 (talk) 10:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • In the lede: "After her husband's death, she toured further, especially to Britain, with a focus on chamber music, which she frequently performed with the violinist Joseph Joachim." While this sentence is technically correct English, the large number of modifier phrases make it slightly confusing, especially if a non-native speaker were to read it.
    Some of this is unnecessary in the lede, as it's already in main text; I shortened it to essentials. Chuckstreet (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    I agree. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    Thank you for great help with all this, Chuckstreet! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Second sentence in the "Child prodigy" section: "age 4-1/2". Is this how four years and six months old is written? I honestly don't know.
    nor do I, - change to what you see fit --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    After some review of my English textbooks, I believe this is correct. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • In the "Child prodigy" section, this clause is ambiguous: "she began taking daily one-hour lessons in piano, violin, singing, theory, harmony, composition, and counterpoint". Were there seven daily one-hour lessons (one in each subject), or was there one daily lesson covering all the subjects? From context, I suspect the former, but this should be clarified.
    I'll try. The latter, - she was 5, and also had to practise ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    Looks better now! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • In the "Child prodigy" section, there is the dependent clause "...using the teaching methods he had developed..." It could potentially be rewritten as "...using his [own] teaching methods..." for conciseness, although this isn't necessary. Thoughts?
    someone whose natiive language is English should decide --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    It looks like someone expanded the text to mention his book, so this point is now irrelevant. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • In the third paragraph of the "Child prodigy" section, the text reads "Clara left for a concert tour". Do you think it would be better to use a more active and descriptive verb here? Unfortunately, I'm drawing a blank on what that word should be. Perhaps "performed"?
    same from me --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    Someone changed it to "toured". Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • In the Vienna section, I added the red comma to this sentence: "Chopin described her playing to Franz Liszt, who came to hear one of Wieck's concerts, and subsequently "praised her extravagantly in a letter that was published in the Parisian Revue et Gazette Musicale and later, in translation, in the Leipzig journal Neue Zeitschrift für Musik."" Could you verify that this is what you meant when you wrote it?
    Liszt wrote the praise, not Chopin. Adding a comma makes it look as though Chopin wrote the praise; I removed the comma. Chuckstreet (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    That makes more sense! Ignore this "issue", then. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • In the "Concert tours" section, the text mentions "and a Mr. Saunders". Is this a specific person (in which case drop the indefinite article), or is this an unknown person (in which case it could be clarified as "and an unknown Mr. Saunders")?
    I found out who the Pyne sisters were, so I added that part last month, but I still can't figure out who Saunders is... I think Reich didn't know so she just referred to him as "a Mr. Saunders", which sounds cool and mysterious to me :-) Anyway, someone added a comma, making the sentence unbalanced (a hanging clause in the last part after the comma), and changing the meaning. I removed the comma and reworded the sentence better. Chuckstreet (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    That's fine! I just wanted to verify that we really didn't know who he was. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • In the "Family life" section, there is an unbalanced "not only...but also" construction: "...not only for the income but also because she was a concert artist by training and nature". Either both should be phrases or both should be clauses.
    I am not aware of such a rule and find the sentence clear as is. Jmar67 (talk) 12:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
    See here, here, and here. While the text may not be syntactically incorrect, faulty parallel constructions are jarring. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
    I also think the sentence is clear as it was, but someone added a comma which actually changed the meaning of the sentence. It was not really a "not only but also" construction at all... if you leave out the added comma. So I removed the comma again. Chuckstreet (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Reaper Eternal: While I actually disagree with some of the examples in the pages on Parallelism you cite, I still think this sentence is not truly a "not only…but also" construct. One needs to look at the entire sentence, not just the part after the word "although". Also, the preceding sentence is necessary to get the meaning. Here are the first two sentences of that paragraph:

Clara Schumann often took charge of finances and general household affairs. Part of her responsibility included earning money by giving concerts, although she continued to play throughout her life not only for the income but also because she was a concert artist by training and nature.

The meaning: The finances were Clara's responsibility. To further the finances, she gave concerts. But the reason she gave concerts wasn't JUST for finances: she also gave concerts because she was an artist and that was in her nature. That's what those two sentences are trying to convey. The entire second sentence explains the first sentence's part about finances, while it also points out an alternate reason. (The third and fourth sentences explain the first sentence's part about "general household affairs".)
Now I changed the word "only" to "just" (slightly different meaning but not by much), and removed "also" so it joins "but because" (no preceding comma!), then changed "although" to "though" (which seems to make a difference but I don't know why). Also deleted the second occurrence of "concert" (redundant and implied):

Clara Schumann often took charge of finances and general household affairs. Part of her responsibility included earning money by giving concerts, though she continued to play throughout her life not just for the income but because she was an artist by training and nature.

Does that sound or read better? If not, please suggest. Chuckstreet (talk) 19:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't like either option because I don't like linking a phrase to a clause with a conjunction, but I'm not going to hold up a GA review over something that isn't even incorrect English grammar. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The second sentence of the last paragraph in the "Family life" section has a confusing construction. It is unclear how the "and" conjunction joins the two clauses, which appear to occur in reverse chronological order. Do you think this phrasing is better? "Marie also dissuaded her mother from continuing to burn letters she had written to and received from Brahms, who had requested that she destroy them."
    It's the description that's wrong. She was burning letters Brahms had written to her; Brahms had requested she do so. Doesn't make sense that Brahms would send her back her own letters she had written to him, with instructions to destroy them; Brahms would have destroyed them himself. I corrected this. Chuckstreet (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    I like your version better. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The <blockquote> tag in the "Performance repertoire" could use a template like {{quote}} so you can include the author information inline with it. The same could be done with the quote in the "Compositions" section. For example:

Tomorrow precisely at eleven o'clock I will play the adagio from Chopin's Variations and at the same time I shall think of you very intently, exclusively of you. Now my request is that you should do the same, so that we may see and meet each other in spirit.

— Robert Schumann
  • done, both --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The fourth paragraph of the "Relationship to composers" section: "Brahms played his First Symphony for her before its premiere. She gave some advice about the Adagio and he took it. She wrote to him and expressed her appreciation, but mentioned her dissatisfaction with the ending of the third and fourth movements." This is partially redundant, and, as a result, somewhat confusing. What do you think about this: "Brahms played his First Symphony for her before its premiere. She wrote back expressing her appreciation but mentioning her dissatisfaction with the endings of the third and fourth movements. He took this advice."?
    done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
    It sounds like the advice was about the Adagio, not the 3rd and 4th movts, so I think it's less accurate this way to leave out mention of the Adagio. My problem, though, is this paragraph doesn't belong in this section about Clara's relationship with other composers: we already know about her relationship with Brahms. This parag should be moved to another section, so I'll reword it again and I know just where it should go... Chuckstreet (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    That works for me. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    same --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Image use
  • Looks good!
External links
  • The first external link (Claire Flynn's thesis) shouldn't exist per WP:ELNO #1 and #8.
    Looks like an interesting thesis to me, but we could move it to the compositions article if you think it shouldn't be here. --GA
    Now that several of the unnecessary links are removed, I'm not confident this really needs to go. I'll leave this to your decision about whether you want to keep it here, move it to another article, or remove it altogether. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The "Kids music corner" external link could probably be removed per WP:ELNO #1.
    done --GA
  • The "Complete works of Clara Schumann-Wieck, List of compositions" external link could probably be removed since it duplicates a Wikipedia list already linked in this article.
    was moved, per below --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Do we need three links to different websites containing music scores, or would one be sufficient?
    I found 2 good, the IMSLP because it offers actual links to the complete works, and the list because it is a complete list - two very different aspects. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
    Makes sense. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
    How about I move that list link to the List of Compositions by Clara Schumann page? That's really where it belongs. Chuckstreet (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    I think that's the correct location for this link. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The archived website link should probably be removed. (WP:ELNO #16 partially applies here.)
    done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • There is a {{clarification needed}} tag in the "Relation to composers" section.
    It says "why?" to hostility. Well, do we know why? I found this, for example, annoying but not serious, I'd say, but do we know artists? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
    I added the tag because I'm dying to know what she had against Liszt. I think we should say (if we can find out why). Chuckstreet (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    Sad that I don't know. - I modified it to less strong (don't find "hostility" in a ref), letting what she did (which follows) explain. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
(dropping in) I'm curious too! It seems to be an aesthetic disagreement. Here's a BBC podcast chatting about it [1] a short news article [2] ("I despise Liszt to the very depths of my soul") and a journal article [3] (paywalled) --Spacepine (talk) 05:26, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Could you please move this from th GA review to the article talk? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Sure, done --Spacepine (talk) 11:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The last sentence in the "Impact during her lifetime" mentions "the repertoire", but doesn't mention which one it is.
    There was a complete section on it, and no point to repeat it, imho. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
    Ah, yeah, that's what I get for reviewing each section and paragraph in a vacuum. I suppose "the repertoire" could be replaced with "her repertoire", but it doesn't really make much difference. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Let me know if you have any questions about these points. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Most refs look much better already, and her piano concerto is in DYK prep for 18 October, with her pic ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Pretty much all the issues preventing this from being listed as a good article are now resolved. If you intend on taking this to WP:FAC, I would recommend having another person review the prose to ensure everything is cleaned up. I'd also recommend sticking to one citation style and generally adding page numbers to the missing references. In any case, great work to all of you! Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for a detailed review which helped the article to grow considerably! Peer review will be the next step. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Clara Schumann[edit]

Thank you for your help, but the lead is rather too short than too long. The tour sentence is too complicated, but Paris and London should be there, if not Vienna also. + chamber music, as unusual for a virtoso player. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Now, heading for PR and FAC, the lead IS too short. Also, can we please have a bit of air in the citations, spaces, I mean, as a little service to future editors. I fixed 4 of them, - ref = harv requires that the "last" parameter is full, otherwise the name of the ref needs to be defined. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt -
I think the lead is supposed to be short, that's what it's for: just a "hook", enough for a summary of what the article is about, to explain the article title.
Refs: I think I finally figured it out. Films and television don't really have authors, so cast and crew names go in "others" parameter. Citation gets listed by title. Take a look, see what you think.
Air is a matter of personal preference. I like things compact. Extra spaces means more typing. Doesn't affect the display, it's just for editing. Each editor is different. If you like, you can change them all (but ALL, so it's consistent), I don't mind TOO much, no biggie for quibble. Chuckstreet (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Need more on her concertizing in the 1880s[edit]

/* Later life */

I added back the original paragraph about her 1870s concertizing, with the 1874 U.S. tour and the concerts in England and Holland and the 1877 Beethoven 5th with Bargiel. Added the ref back to all of that; it got lost in the shuffle of sentences, and the part about her arm injury got mixed up with it (both originally posted by the same user, but as separate paragraphs).

The text now jumps from her 1870s concertizing and her arm injury, to her last concert in 1891. Could we get something about her performances in the 1880s to fill the gap?

Chuckstreet (talk) 01:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for digging into that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Only: I don't see a ref for a US tour. I looked in vol 1 and vol 2 of the offline source, and can't find it, not in the given pages nor anywhere else. (There's a vol 3 that I don't see, though.) I think a tour would show here, but all 1874 mentionings are not about it (but about reduced concertizing), nor do I find it anywhere else in that text, nor New York, nor U.S.. Help?? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
The only thing I found referencing an 1874 tour in America looks suspiciously like the author was using Wikipedia as a source. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
No US tour mentioned in her entire concertizing history at either. But I see another problem: the dates of her arm injury and her refrain from concertizing appear to be incorrect. Judging by that concert list on the portal, the only large gap is between December 1873 and March 1875. No concertizing at all in 1874 (obviously no tour to US or anywhere). Also can we verify the correct date for the Beethoven 5th with Bargiel in Berlin? We have 1877, but I see no concert in Berlin in 1877 in the portal list. The only Berlin concerts in the 1870s were 1870, 1871, and 1875 (Oct-Dec), the next one after that was 1883 (there's a typo in two entries in that list there 1882->1883). Chuckstreet (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I hope we can, just had a few other tasks. Perhaps "injury" isn't even the right word? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Rewrote the entire section, including info on concerts in 1880s, and her regular England tours, and listed more countries. I THINK those are the correct dates of her "injury"; please check the dates in Litzmann for me, re her visit and advice from the doctor, and that quote from her in May(?). Still don't know about the 1877 Berlin concert with Bargiel Beethoven 5th; please check this one. Chuckstreet (talk) 17:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the rewrite. Sorry, can't find that Bargiel Beethoven V concert. Remove? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
The portal list says it omits performances in cities where she was living at the time, so that would be why no Berlin in 1877, and no Frankfurt in some other years. All I know is it wasn't the Berlin Philharmonic because that was founded in 1882. Clara played several times with them under Bargiel or Joachim or others conducting, in the 1880s, first time in 1883, Beethoven Choral Fantasy, later Beethoven 4th, no mention of 5th. The 1883 Choral Fantasy she played with her hand in pain from a staircase fall the day before, yet she got a standing ovation. For all accounts of her Berlin Phil concerts, they were all "tremendous successes". We could delete the 1877 ref and include the 1883 Choral Fantasy instead (with a mention of her hand injury in a letter to Brahms), but that was a different conductor; would be nice to mention Woldemar Bargiel somewhere in the article; this sentence is the only mention. What do you think? Chuckstreet (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
All good ideas, go ahead ;) - Bargiel is mentioned often, also letters between him and her, that's easy to source. Always nice to see the Choral Fantasy mentioned which was my first choral performance, age 10 ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I'll get to it tomorrow or the weekend, I'm going to relax and binge-watch Star Trek right now. :-) Chuckstreet (talk) 05:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Reich refs[edit]

I found the Grove Online version by Reich (2011) yesterday, and sourced things that it covers to it. I can't see her older books, and after the experience with the US tour and Beethoven's 5th piano concerto, I don't trust the older offline sources given, also find that they clutter the reflist. Can we have Reich 2011 at least in addition? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I found the original reference for the Beethoven 5th 1877 Bargiel and the dates of her arm injury: Litzmann vol. 1 pages 322–323 (page numbers apparently vary between editions, though). I notice for one of them you cite Litzmann vol. 2, page 42 and a Google Books link; I'll have to check that out. I fixed up many more refs today; still some <ref> to be converted to {{sfn}}. The Reich Grove is only a tiny 2 pages, written in 2001; the various text on the page that you cited as ref in Reich Grove isn't mentioned in that tiny article; it's in the Reich book, also published in 2001. The book is available online, Google Books. Some of the older refs (not counting Litzmann) have cute quotes which I like, so I put them back in :) Chuckstreet (talk) 05:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
The Reich I like to quote in addition is this, it was updated on 23 February 2011, and makes for easy verify, much easier than for individual pages of a book even if online. It also has a complete works list, and a good bibliography, all concise. - Thank you for chasing the 5th concerto! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes that's the 2-page article written for Grove's 7th (the print ed.) in 2001. There's not much information in it, compared to other sources like Reich's book or Litzmann. Even the Wikipedia article is twice as long. The only thing "updated" in Grove's 8th (the online ed.) is a bibliography in 2011; the text of the article (and the list of compositions) haven't been updated since 2001. In fact, I've found new info on compositions since that was published. But my point in changing some of your new sfn refs to point to the full book instead of the 2-page article, is that some of the WP text you're referencing isn't found in the article but in the book. The Groves 8th you added in several sfn's is still referenced on this page, however; I just corrected the date. Chuckstreet (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining, - I still think that it's convenient for some things. Choir rehearsla now. Sorry about no time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I think the more different references we have, the more well-rounded the article will be. I don't think it's good for an entire article to be based on only one or even two references (Reich and maybe Litzmann in this case). Would seem to be biased or one-sided. The more sources the better. As for the oldness of the sources, I find nothing wrong with that (Litzmann is over a century old after all), as long as the information or assertions haven't been proven wrong by later research. Chuckstreet (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Liszt disagreements[edit]

It was questioned during the GA review why Schumann didn't like Liszt. It seems to be an aesthetic disagreement in music styles. Here's a BBC podcast chatting about it [4] a short news article [5] ("I despise Liszt to the very depths of my soul") and a journal article [6] (paywalled) --Spacepine (talk) 11:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes that Composer of the Week episode is very instructive. Donald Mcleod says: "she became increasingly repelled by his personality - both musical and, well, personal." The website notes say this:
"Distintissimo!" – most distinguished! – that’s how the 19th-century piano superstar Franz Liszt described Clara Schumann after seeing her play in Vienna in 1838. And Clara, like most people, was absolutely bowled over by Liszt – "He cannot be compared to any other player – he is absolutely unique", she wrote in her diary. But as a composer, she gradually came to detest him, and by the time of his death she could write that “his compositions lack those very qualities which he possessed as a virtuoso; they are trivial and tedious and will certainly soon disappear from the world in the wake of his passing.” Liszt, by contrast, paid Clara the compliment, late in life, of transcribing three of her songs for solo piano." Martinevans123 (talk) 11:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Sentences to be removed?[edit]

This sentence under Child Prodigy (last sentence of paragraph 2) seems silly to me:

He would sometimes dress up as a ghost and scare Clara, creating a bond between the two.

The source reference is

Reich, Susanna (1999). Clara Schumann: Piano Virtuoso,. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. p. 28. ISBN 0-618-55160-3,

a children's book, which explains the silliness. It's cute, but seems out of place and rather jarring in this article, don't you think? I vote for its deletion. Chuckstreet (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

agree --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I removed the sentence and ref, but that leaves the previous sentences without a reference. I believe they're from the same children's book, though I find those sentences useful and not silly. Can we find another reference for them? Chuckstreet (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I believe that Clara recalls Robert's ghost stories in some of the correspondence included in this work, which might be useful as a source for other details of their early life. I'm not entirely sure what would be the modern view of an 18 year-old boy taking an interest in a 9 year-old girl. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


In citation templates, we don't say "p. 123" but "123", the template adds the "p." (or pp.). When a link can be modified by simply adding, often when giving a plural, such as [[lied]]er, that is the preferred way of piping, vs. [[Lied|lieder]], compare [[preludes]]s vs. [[prelude|preludes]]. It doesn't work when different spelling is needed, such as [[Symphony|symphonies]]. Consider to restore the better version. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

This discussion was moved from Chucktreet's user talk page. Nothing specific to Schumann. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Re p: yes that's the way it should work, but for some reason the template does not add the p in some of the cites, so it has to be specified manually.
Re linking partial words: you're right, my bad. A while back, I spotted one where it didn't work, it just blue-highlighted part of the word, so I corrected that, and while I was at it I "corrected" any other partial links I saw in the wikitext, not realizing those displayed fine. I'll fix. Chuckstreet (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, it seems that cite journal works differently, - always learning, and lack of consistency I think. Which leaves the other. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

More confusing: the examples in the documentation don't request a "p." or "pp.". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I see someone else already got to correcting the partial linking already, but then he also got rid of the p. Need to put that back in otherwise it doesn't display. Chuckstreet (talk) 15:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
It seems the template's fault, so better complain there instead of changing single instances in articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Actually no the other user did not correct the partial links; he just messed up a different one: one that does NOT display correctly [[Austria]]'s doesn't highlight properly because of the apostrophe. I fix the ones that need fixing. Chuckstreet (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Calling Dragons flight and RexxS: problem with cite journal, parameters page and pages don't add "p." respectively "pp." to page number(s) as value, while - as far as I remember - they used to do it, and cite book still does. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
The reason is that citations to scholarly journals do not conventionally normally include the "p " before the page number(s), unlike citations to books, which conventionally do. The parameter itself can be called |page= or |p= for a single page and |pages= or |pp= for a range. For citations, you should never write |page=p. 1234; only write |page=1234. Here are some abbreviated examples as illustration:
Comparison of cite journal with cite book
Wikimarkup Result Notes
{{cite journal |last=Hall |first=George |title=Schumann, Clara |journal=Companion to Music |year=2002 |page=p. 1124}} Hall, George (2002). "Schumann, Clara". Companion to Music: p. 1124.CS1 maint: extra text (link) ☒N
{{cite journal |last=Hall |first=George |title=Schumann, Clara |journal=Companion to Music |year=2002 |page=1124}} Hall, George (2002). "Schumann, Clara". Companion to Music: 1124. ☑Y
{{cite book |last=Hall |first=George |title=Schumann, Clara |year=2002 |page=p. 1124}} Hall, George (2002). Schumann, Clara. p. p. 1124.CS1 maint: extra text (link) ☒N
{{cite book |last=Hall |first=George |title=Schumann, Clara |year=2002 |page=1124}} Hall, George (2002). Schumann, Clara. p. 1124. ☑Y
{{cite journal |last=Hall |first=George |title=Schumann, Clara |journal=Companion to Music |year=2002 |p=p. 1124}} Hall, George (2002). "Schumann, Clara". The Oxford Companion to Music: p. 1124.CS1 maint: extra text (link) ☒N
{{cite journal |last=Hall |first=George |title=Schumann, Clara |journal=Companion to Music |year=2002 |p=1124}} Hall, George (2002). "Schumann, Clara". The Oxford Companion to Music: 1124. ☑Y
{{cite book |last=Hall |first=George |title=Schumann, Clara |year=2002 |p=p. 1124}} Hall, George (2002). Schumann, Clara. p. p. 1124.CS1 maint: extra text (link) ☒N
{{cite book |last=Hall |first=George |title=Schumann, Clara |year=2002 |p=1124}} Hall, George (2002). Schumann, Clara. p. 1124. ☑Y
The template handles whether the p./pp. is inserted according to what type of cite it is. It is unfortunate that book and journal citations are not consistent with each other, but those are the scholarly conventions and the template coders merely followed them. HTH --RexxS (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I went back to the [[llied]]er, but it seems possessives don't work with that trick. Besides "Austria's" there's also "Bonn's" on that page (that I left unchanged). However, I find it unnecessary to link Austria at all, so I completely removed the link. As for p, we should leave it until the template gets "fixed". It might be just an alternate style for journals, but I don't like it. The date runs into the page number and it looks weird; better to have a p in there... and then there's consistency... Chuckstreet (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
You are right, possessives don't work. I pinged the one who made the latest change to the cite journal template (which was major, and too hard for me to decipher, but he put up a health message), and a friend who knows templates in and out. Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@Chuckstreet and Gerda Arendt: Have a look at pmid:1234, for example. Near the top you will see:
  • Drug Metab Dispos. 1975 Nov-Dec;3(6):565-76.
That is how scholarly journals make their citations. The corresponding Wikipedia citation might be:
  • {{cite journal |author=Nadeau D |title=Change in the kinetics of sulphacetamide tissue distribution |journal=Drug Metab. Dispos. |volume=3 |issue=6 |pages=565–76 |date=1975}}
  • Nadeau D (1975). "Change in the kinetics of sulphacetamide tissue distribution". Drug Metab. Dispos. 3 (6): 565–76.
We should respect the common conventions that most of our readers will be used to, not make up our own (even if we feel ours would be better). --RexxS (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps we should, but I don't like the way the volume/number looks, for the same reason. "1975 Nov-Dec;3(6):565-76." looks very cluttered to me. In my view something like "1975 Nov-Dec, Vol. 3 No. 6, pp. 565-76." is a lot easier on the eyes and anyone would be able to understand and differentiate the different fields at a glance. Most WP pages I've seen do explicitly use "vol", "no", "p", and so on, and not the concise format without labels.
Most WP viewers are not "scholarly" necessarily, but still might be curious enough to read the cited article. I think it helps the general reader, whereas the cluttered version people without the technical knowledge of citations you just imparted would find confusing and indecipherable. It's one convention out of several; do we have to follow just this one on every page? Chuckstreet (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Chuckstreet that the cluttered professional look is not for everybody, and the inconsistency with the rendering of books is striking. Could we use "cite book" instead until this gets resolved? I tried to post on the template talk, finding that it is a redirect, so I was unsure if I landed at the right place. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Look, this is all well and good, but restoring the extra text just puts the page back into the maintenance category, which means some editor or bot will attempt to fix it. Again and again. If you object to the style of citations, take it up at the template level, do not subvert the function of templates with workarounds that make you happy.— TAnthonyTalk 04:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Specifically, please open a discussion at Template talk:Cite journal. I tend to agree that the "p" should be rendered even in journal citations, but consensus up to now seems to have decided otherwise.— TAnthonyTalk 04:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually no, I have not decided otherwise, we don't have a consensus yet. So far, we we're just trying to figure out if the lack of a p in cite journal was a bug: that's been answered and reasoned.
I agree with you that there should be a p (and also a vol and a no.), all for the reasons I stated in my last post above. That can be achieved with an alternate template (instead of cite, which I think there IS a standing consensus to use), or some alternate parameters and formatting available within cite. The id= parameter can be used to add extra material at the END of the cite, which is exactly where the vol/no/p gets displayed. That's a valid solution.
But the question is still out: do we want journal citations on the Clara Schumann page to have the concise esoteric look, or the explicitly readable look? Consistency is important I think, and the other cites like "book" display a readable view with p before a page number. Citation format is a matter of individual preference, and is different for each WP article; the preference is usually dictated by the person who originally wrote it. Since the present attempt (going for GA, which it now is (with those added p's in cite journal so they display)) is a major rewrite, we can change the original cite style (and we're doing so).
BTW, I don't see any maintenance bots making any changes; that doesn't seem to be an issue, but if this page IS coming up in a maintenance log, putting the page number in the "id" parameter should fix that. Or even putting the page in the sfn template as per numerous other examples on this page - there's another solution. Chuckstreet (talk) 05:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Update: I put the p or pp in the sfn's instead of the cite journals, similar to the p= we already have in many other sfn's for cite books. The p/pp displays fine now for journals. Go figure. Wonder why sfn will display it, when cite journal will not? Curious. Still wondering about vol and #. They displayed when we had them in <ref>, but not in cite journal; could "fix" those as well... Actually, there are still some <ref>s to convert to sfn's... to do... Yes I know, he who suggests it, etc. Chuckstreet (talk) 08:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Good idea to have the pages in the short citations! Thank you for the transfer to Harvard, - it was Reaper Eternal who suggested a unified style. I suggest we go to peer review in 2 days. I'm busy today, which also avoids edit conflicts ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Susanna Reich source[edit]

I see that the Susanna Reich (1999) source cites a specific page number. However, it's not clear where in the article that source is cited, as I couldn't find a shortened footnote anywhere. AmericanLemming (talk) 03:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. Chuckstreet (talk) 05:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)