Wikipedia:Peer review/Royal Philharmonic Orchestra/archive1

Royal Philharmonic Orchestra[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
My aim is to get the articles on the five London orchestras up to GA level. (I have no ambitions to FA.) This is the third I have had a go at, following the London Symphony Orchestra and the BBC Symphony Orchestra, which have arrived safely at GA. The London Philharmonic and the Philharmonia are yet to come. This one is shorter than the LSO and BBC SO articles, mainly because those orchestras were founded in 1904 and 1930, respectively, whereas the RPO, the newest of the five orchestras, has less history to draw on. As always, comments on clarity, prose, proportion and so on will be gratefully received. – Tim riley (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doing, although I see a lot of work happening now. Waiting until it settles down. Ceoil (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am enjoying reading this article very much, and its nice to see it develope, even as I set down these minor quibbles.

"adequate public subsidy" - the word 'adequate' is loaded, emotive, and not explained enough in the lead.

In the lead "many of which remain available in the digital era" -this makes no sence, your presenting it as a triumph, surely recordings are now far more freely available "in the digital era" than before.

"He attempted to renew his association with the London Philharmonic Orchestra (LPO), which he had founded in 1932" - there is a huge gap in internal policicing glossed over here. It sounds juicy, and leaves me wondering.

"would accept Beecham back only on its own terms as its salaried artistic director" - Im not sure where the wound here was felt; because he was salaried? Ceoil (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All now dealt with, I think. But have I now overdone the LPO stuff at the start? Tim riley (talk) 10:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto

Just a few to muse over, flawless Riley stuff as usual.

It would be great to have a lede image. The arms maybe?
- I pondered that. It would indeed be good to have an opening image, and the arms would do very well, but then the whole first section would be without any picture to break up the acres of text. I can't think of any free or plausibly fair use image to use instead. Tim riley (talk) 09:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - How about having a free image of Beecham in the first section which then allows the arms to be moved up to the lede? Excuse the awful pun, but it strikes me that Beecham was *ahem* instrumental in its creation. -- Cassianto ^Talk 11:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Unfortunately the only free images of Beecham show him as a young man in the early part of the last century, and he was getting on for 70 when he founded the RPO. I think it would look very odd. Tim riley (talk) 11:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC) Later: Does this external shot of the orchestra's home, Cadogan Hall, look all right? Tim riley (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - I will be honest and say that I think it does look a bit odd for a lede image. It would be the sort of lede image one would expect to find on the Cadogan Hall article. I think it might get picked up on during a GAC depending on how strict the reviewer will be. However, I think its OK for an image within the body and foresee no issues. Incidentally, I have emailed Crisco and SchroCat with a view of finding a US published photo of Beecham in the 1940s which would make it pre 1963, but I'm not holding out much hope. -- Cassianto ^Talk 13:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        How about this – swapping the interior and exterior shots, to feature the RPO players in the info-box image?
        Yes, a lot better. -- Cassianto ^Talk 18:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"...Davis Theatre Croydon." -- Is there a comma missing from before Croydon?
- There was, but no longer. Tim riley (talk) 09:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Among the well-known players who have been RPO principals in the mid-1950s and later, string players include..." -- Repetition of "players". Also, there seems to be two introductions for the players: "Among the well-known players who have been RPO principals in the mid-1950s and later...", and "string players include..."
- First point: yes, and dealt with. Second point: I think this is all right. It makes the two points I wish to make, viz that they were mid-50s (and later) principals and then distinguishing between the sections. Tim riley (talk) 09:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"In 2009, Charles Dutoit was appointed artistic director and principal conductor..." -- are you of the school who use commas after an introductory date, or do you frown?
- They are better avoided when practical. Certainly not needed here, and duly deleted. Thank you. Tim riley (talk) 09:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"...a celebrated Beethoven Seventh Symphony" -- I'm sure it was but would this be peacocky?
- Removed pro tem. I'll scout about for a reference justifying "celebrated" (which it certainly is) Tim riley (talk) 09:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could the reference column be split into two to reduce white space?
- ~~Very happy for that to happen, but I'm blest if I know how to do it. If you do, then please do the honours. Tim riley (talk) 09:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)~~ As you were! User:Aa77zz has kindly done the deed unbidden. Tim riley (talk) 10:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing more from me Tim. Good work as usual! -- Cassianto ^Talk 02:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto ^Talk 16:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent stuff, thank you! I shall enjoy going through these points tomorrow. Tim riley (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC) And now done. Tim riley (talk) 09:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments Slim pickings from me (and one memorable choking fit):

"Beecham agreed with the Glyndebourne Festival that the RPO should be the resident orchestra at Glyndebourne seasons." The word "agreed" sounds a little informal; perhaps "arranged" or even "contracted"?
Consecutive sentence beginnings: "The principal cellist was Raymond Clarke..."; "The principal horn player was Dennis Brain..." Not a major point, but perhaps a slight variation could be tweaked?
"venturing on"; just "venturing" will do.
Likewise I would say "had made more than 100" and omit the "others".
1961–2000 section: the opening words "After Beecham's death" are redundant
Shouldn't Beecham's widow have a name?
Swiss Cottage a suburb? Surely, surely not! I lived there mid-1970s, and would have died rather than accept that description. Hendon is a suburb, as are Finchley, Muswell Hill, Edgware etc etc. But please, please, not the Cottage!
Question on capitalisation in "Silver Jubilee"?
"From 1993 the RPO has had..." → "Since 1993 the RPO has had..."
Will non-musical people know what "residency" means in this context?
"works by composers ranging from Bach to [a motley collection of 19th and 20th century composers covering about 130 years]" I'm not sure that this describes a "range" as such. Perhaps simplify to "played works by Bach, Copland..." etc
"in the mid-1950s and later" could be just "since the mid-1950s"
On a point of curiosity, why did the orchestra record under pseudonyms?
Minor style point: three of the four paras in the Recordings section begin "In..."

That's what I have. The article is splendidly informative, and evocative of my early concertgoing days (when I lived very close to the centre of action a short distance from Swiss Cottage tube station) Brianboulton (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and profound apologies for causing the choking fit. I've acted on all your suggestions with the exception of the one about "in the mid-1950s and later": I originally had the wording you suggest, but decided it could be read as saying that the players were still with the orchestra. I don't know why the pseudonyms; the source doesn't say. I imagine it was because EMI had some sort of contractual right to the RPO's services, but that's just speculation on my part. – Tim riley (talk) 09:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From Smerus. Informative and engaging; I enjoyed this very much. The maestri above have I think taken up virtually all the significant issues and points to consider. I would just add that the section '1946-1961' is a bit long and starts (appropriately) in 1936. You could ?possibly make a break after the Lyndon Jenkins quote so as to have e.g. 'Beecham: The Origins' and 'The Beecham Years'. Also; whilst you deal with the threats to the orchestra in the last decades of the 20th century, the absence of any discussion of this in the 21st century might give the reader the impression that the time for these problems is over - there have been actual or threatened cuts of public grant over the past few years, I think (difficult to reconcile the different figures I find on Google), but it may be worth establishing this. Best, --Smerus (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

PS: On the vital 'Swiss Cottage' issue: when I were a lad, I used to go to the 'Youth and Music' concerts there (organised by Sir Robert Mayer) and am pretty sure that the RPO was amongst the regular orchestras there - but can't find citations for this. The WP article on Sir Robert (who had a long association with Beecham) says that the RPO played at his centenarian celebrations (again alas without citation). PS: Sir Robert was the only man I have met who had been (so he told me) patted on the head by Brahms - not that it is at all relevant but now my tale is available for all eternity on the internet.--Smerus (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel honoured that a page of mine is the permanent repository for this delightful and impressive fact! Tim riley (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC) I've broken up the opening section as suggested. I think the line about the unpredictability of sponsorship probably covers the continuing financial problems, but I'll scout round for up to date corroborative detail. Thank you very much for your comments. – Tim riley (talk) 09:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re Mayer: I am pretty certain that it was the LPO, not the RPO, that played at the centenary concert in 1979. I actually remember the concert, though I didn't go to it. I also believe that Colin Davis conducted at this event (at the time I knew a bit about Davis's activities because I knew his sister – not in the biblical sense I must add). I'll bet there's something about it online somewhere, or in one of your newspaper repositories, Tim. Brianboulton (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And, lo and behold, here's something! Brianboulton (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! I watched the concert on the television. Davis conducted the Beecham arrangement of the Hallelujah Chorus, I recall (cymbal crashes and all). Alas, I am going to Davis's memorial concert on Tuesday. When I booked, it was to hear the great man doing the Great C major. He will be dreadfully missed. Tim riley (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing PR now. Warm thanks to all who contributed. Tim riley (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]