Wikipedia:Peer review/Symphonic poems (Liszt)/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Symphonic Poems (Liszt)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to improve it for Feature Article review, and the best way to do so is through feedback received under Peer Review…

Thanks, Jonyungk (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ricardiana

 Done

List of works

  • I suggest putting this section down further, after you've discussed the works. Coming upon a list at the beginning of the article was surprising and made me think for a second that you were shooting for a Featured List rather than FA.
    Done. Jonyungk (talk) 07:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "Liszt also made additional versions for the piano" - made is a rather weak verb. Composed? Wrote?Also, the immediate switch to passive voice in the rest of this sentence is mildly confusing and I think unnecessary.
    Done. Jonyungk (talk) 07:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Inventing the symphonic poem

  • "The direct ancestors for Liszt's symphonic poems were the dramatic overtures written by Beethoven for Egmont and Coriolanus, originally written for stage productions" - close repetition of "written" - could be "originally written for stage prod. of ..."
  • "These overtures enact specific dramatic events from their extramusical sources while displaying a concentration and expressive power later echoed by many other single-movement works" - rather vague. What events - what sources - what other works?
  • "Also, before attempting single-movement orchestral works" - this is not the best transition.
  • "MacDonald points out that Liszt's invention" - Who MacDonald? we haven't heard of this person yet.
  • "in bredth and scope" - I'm seeing various mis-spellings and typos here, one of which I fixed without comment. I see more: a little further down we have "primmarily" and "so far from being an being rigid". Etc. The article needs a thorough copyedit.
  • "Nor could they" - you go on to discuss how there's a difference between Classical and more Romantic types of music ... what about these differences justifies the idea that Liszt's works could not be Classical? They aren't, but that's not the same thing.
  • Ralph Wood quotation is long and should be in blockquotes.
  • Second paragraph - you've jumped back to Beethoven again, without transitioning. I'm getting the feeling that Beethoven is a lot more important than Liszt in this article.
  • Temperley quotation also long and should also be in blockquotes.
  • "In one way, Liszt had little choice in the path he took" - seems POV. From source?
    Done. These points have been addressed and, in many instances, elininated. Jonyungk (talk) 02:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Composition process

  • "in similar manner to how Richard Wagner would later compose" - clumsy. Perhaps "in a manner similar to that later made famous by Richard Wagner".
    Done. Jonyungk (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • First paragraph is rather difficult for non-students of music to understand. What are "kaleidoscopic" contrasts - the link is not overly helpful here?
    Done. Jonyungk (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "Liszt indicated a cut of 45 pages " - italics here are unnecessary and too casual in tone.
    Done. Jonyungk (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "To the modern mind, where every phrase of a musical work may be considered inviolable, Liszt's view on cuts and alternative passages in his works may appear confusing and mysterious. Wouldn't offering to jettison such a large section of a composition, or to offfer such a range of alternatives, cause one to question the worth of the rest of the piece?" -- is there is a source for this? Without sources, this paragraph appears like a POV battle against a freshman student straw man.
    This paragraph is sourced, but I will add additional footnotes to make this abundantly clear. Jonyungk (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
    This paragraph has since been eliminated. Jonyungk (talk) 23:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "Liszt's justification for composing as he did was the comment" - this whole paragraph is a bit repetitive. In addition, we seem to be moving away from the symphonic poems - something of a problem in the whole article. In the wealth of contextualizing info about Beethoven and Wagnerian technique and Liszt's general compositional philosophy, the symphonic poems themselves are a bit lost.
    Done. This paragraph has been eliminated.
  • "One important note: Raff " - it would be helpful, and less abrupt, to have a quick reminder here of who Raff is.
    Done. Jonyungk (talk) 23:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Programmatic content

  • This section is a little repetitive within itself. E.g., the idea that music is more important than representation for L. is stated several times.
    Done. Much of this section has been eliminated. Jonyungk (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Reception and historical importance

  • The historical importance sub-section is only one paragraph, and a short one. And with only one source. Is there more info about the influence of these works?
    There are actually two sources for this paragraph—two different volumes of the New Grove, by two different authors. Jonyungk (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
    I've since expanded this area and made it a separate section. Jonyungk (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • War of the Romantics should be linked.
    It is already linked. Jonyungk (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry; my mistake. Ricardiana (talk) 02:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "Nor was this the only time Brahms would write program music" - this and the next sentence both begin with "nor". I'd change one.
    Done. Jonyungk (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "especially in cities where they were used" - colloquial, but "cities" aren't really the ones used to anything here. Suggest something like "cities where audiences were used".
    Changed "they were used" to " listeners were accustomed. " Jonyungk (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "was almost stopped entirely due to hissing " - a little confusing. "almost stopped, entirely due..." or "almost stopped entirely, due ..." I think the "entirely" could just be deleted here.
    Done. Jonyungk (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm seeing a number of sentences that lack periods at the end.

Bibliography

  • What style guide are you following?
    This has been revamped to follow Chicago Manual of Style. Jonyungk (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Ricardiana (talk) 05:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Some observations on the lead section:-

  • I have fixed a couple of nbsps in the first line; check for others in the rest of the article
  • "They were enormously influential..." should be avoided per WP:Peacock; otherwise the neutrality of the article looks dubious from the outset. Note that WP:Lead says: "The lead section should neutrally summarise information in the body."
  • "Liszt's intent, according to Hugh MacDonald in the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (1980)..." I don't think it's a good idea to include the source in the text. It would be better to say "Liszt's intent, according to musicologist Hugh MacDonald..." and leave the source for the citation.
  • "Extremely creative amendments" is another example of non-neutral phrasing that requires attention.
  • Verbosity: "Possibly knowing well how the public liked to attach stories to instrumental music in an attempt to explain the inexplicable, and feeling that since many of these works were written in new forms, some sort of verbal or written explanation would be welcome, he provided context before others could invent something to take its place." This sentence is a slightly longer version of what appears in the body of the text; the purpose of the lead is to summarise. A summary form might be: "He was aware that the public often liked to attach "stories" to instrumental music, and decided to provide his own context before others invented something else."

I have read through the rest of the article, rather quickly I must admit. I noticed that referencing is quite thin in places – for example, see the first part of the third paragraph of "Composition process". In all, the article seems comprehensive, clearly written, and with good illustrations – I am considering pinching "Liszt conducting" for the Smetana article. If I have time I will give the text more attention, but as you rightly guess, I am quite busy at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)