Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Walton/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:33, 23 October 2010 [1].

William Walton[edit]

William Walton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Tim riley (talk) 12:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After a thorough peer review – to contributors to which, my grateful thanks – and substantial editing and additions thereafter, I am nominating this article for FA because I believe it now meets the FA criteria and does justice to one of England's leading 20th century composers. Tim riley (talk) 12:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An excellent article. Sorry I missed the peer review as the article wasn't on my watch list. I think it meets every criterion admirably except "comprehensive". The missing link is, I think, his influence on subsequent composers, nationally and internationally. Do the sources tell us anything about this? Even if they mention the lack of such influence, that (and the reasons for it) would be interesting.

  • Good point. Walton had very little influence on any other composer. He had no pupils, held no posts at any conservatoire, and wrote as little prose as he could. Of composers of the next generation he was immensely fond of Henze (whom he rated a genius) but nobody as far as I know suggests that Walton influenced Henze's compositions. For Walton's seventieth birthday concert six younger British composers wrote pieces each incorporating a Walton quotation, but these were pièces d'occasion, and could not conscientiously be cited as evidence of any influence by Walton on their styles. Malcolm Arnold became a good friend, and Walton invited him to do some orchestration for him, but again, Walton's influence on Arnold's own music is not remarked on, as far as I have read. I have added a sentence to the first para of the Music section, accordingly. Tim riley (talk) 08:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Later: I think there is just enough material to make a short section on Walton's legacy, which I have added at the end of the biography section. Tim riley (talk) 08:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article could perhaps also do with some musical examples: I would like to see detailed discussion of these examples too, as they would be likely to illuminate his style (often unmistakable) and technique - as well as satisfying the fair use requirement. Satisfactory solutions to this have been reached on other 20th century composer FAs, for example Messiaen, Lutoslawski and Takemitsu.

  • I am not sure I agree with this. The FA articles on Mahler and Shostakovich, which do not use music texts (except to illustrate the DSCH motif), seem to me more suitable for the general encyclopaedia reader. Note that neither Grove nor the Dictionary of National Biography uses music examples in its article on Walton. I have occasionally added music examples to WP articles on individual compositions (e.g. to Elgar's Falstaff) where the themes are the crux of the text, but for a general biographical-cum-musical article I think the model of Grove and the ODNB is the right one. (I do not, let me hasten to add, disparage the use of musical texts in the Messiaen, Lutoslawski and Takemitsu articles, where the composers' innnovative or unorthodox techniques are crucial to the prose, but no such consideration applies to Walton, who rarely strayed far from tonality, albeit with a Waltonian spin.) I hope other reviewers will comment on this, and I'll follow the consensus. Tim riley (talk) 08:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • See also Brianboulton's thoughts on this, below. Tim riley (talk) 08:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My other observations are minor. Walton's Royal Philharmonic Society Gold Medal is implied because the article is in the category: would receipt of such a prestigious award (particularly at the relatively young age of 45) warrant a mention with a reference? The other categories are all supported in the text.

I remember reading that when Bax was made Master of the King's Music, Wilfrid Mellers among others expressed puzzlement: Mellers wrote that Vaughan Williams and Walton were the obvious candidates. Would you like me to dig out a reference? I also remember hearing Julian Bream in interview some years ago commenting about Walton's slowness - "he would come downstairs in the morning and write two notes, and then come back in the afternoon and rub one of them out." This is anecdotal, so can't go in the article unfortunately - unless someone else remembers which TV programme it was?

  • Kennedy (p. 129) says that Bax was as surprised as anybody to be offered the post, but gives no indication that Walton would have liked the post or accepted it if offered. I have added a verified quote about the india-rubber. Tim riley (talk) 08:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be really picky, I wonder about the spelling of première throughout - I think it should have the accent, and my English English spell-checker backs me up. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am with you in preferring première to premiere (and élite to elite, régime to regime etc) but the house style is to use the plainest forms where possible. I note Brianboulton's comment below, and I have checked the full OED: it prefers première but admits premiere, which I think we must, too. Tim riley (talk) 08:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My thanks for these points. I shall, if I may, seek to recruit you at peer review of any future musical articles I engage in. Tim riley (talk) 08:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thank you, Tim, for your responses. We must agree to differ about music examples, but I am not dogmatic about it. If I get some time and access to references (which won't be soon) I can gauge whether examples would add anything interesting, relevant and appropriate about Walton's style. They may not! - and if they might, I could contribute some... Thank you for receiving my other suggestions so openly. Yes, by all means ping me if you think I would be useful at other musical articles' peer reviews. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support. I shall most certainly take you up on your kind offer for future peer reviews. Tim riley (talk) 11:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: On the last point, "premiere" (without accent) is approved English spelling per Collins English Dictionary. It seems that the accent is optional; the thing is to be consistent. Also (unfortunately) I have heard Bream's anecdote told about Stravinsky, so it may be one of those stories that goes around. I will review the article later; it is something to look forward to. Brianboulton (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • You need to format the external link for the performance of Walton's cello concerto in the external links, it should have a title, like the others
    • Along the same lines, external links should only contain links to things NOT used as references, so the williamwalton.net needs to be removed.
    • And you should format the two links to williamwalton.net in your notes as references - using Template:Cite web
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All three done as bidden. - Tim riley (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Ealdgyth for the above. Tim riley (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments 2c: Very impressed with the quality of citations, especially the citation of Musical resources. A few quibbles: Fifelfoo (talk) 03:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1c question: Some Further Reading obviously cannot be consulted for writing wikipedia (PRIMARY), but others appear they could have been, why not? Do they go over existing ground.
      • That is it exactly. The biographical details are common to all, and Kennedy is the best-known of them (deservedly, it seems to me.) The Howes book on the music is worth reading, but cannot be relied on as a source because it is, by reason of its date of publication, out of date, omitting Walton's later music. (Kennedy endorses Howes's judgment on those works that Howes covers.) – Tim riley (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surely, Mason, Colin (1946). "William Walton," in British Music of Our Time Bacharach, A. L. (ed.) Pelican Books. instead of : Mason, Colin; Bacharach, A. L. (ed.) (1946). William Walton, in British Music of Our Time. Pelican Books. ?
      • I agree, but alas the cite book template doesn't allow it, unless I am doing something wrong with it. – Tim riley (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Similarly Hussey, Dyneley (1957). "William Walton," in The Music Masters Bacharach, A. L. (ed.). Pelican Books. ?
      • As above.
    • 1c congratulations: "In terms of average earnings this equates to £60,000 in 2009: see measuringworth.com" You picked the right inflation measure, and described it! I'm joyous.
      • Thank you very much! It is more by good luck than good judgment that I picked that measure. I should be most interested to know more, and have left a message on your talk page. – Tim riley (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2c question: Measuring Worth suggests a measure of citing them, " Samuel H. Williamson, "Five Ways to Compute the Relative Value of a UK Pound Amount, 1830 to Present," MeasuringWorth, 2008. "
      • I hadn't spotted this on the site, and have now added the citation mentioning Mr Williamson. Thank you for telling me about it – and indeed for the other comments, above. – Tim riley (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments - concerns have been adequately addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per MoS Headings, "The 1930s" should be just "1930s"
    • Yes – I ought to have remembered that. Now done. – Tim riley (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he was taken up by the literary Sitwell siblings" - do you mean "taken in"?
    • This is normal idiomatic UK usage. Taken up = befriended and adopted into a circle. Possibly this is a difference in transatlantic usage. – Tim riley (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "set up home" -> "set up his/a home"
    • As above – this is ordinary UK English. Another transatlantic difference, I feel sure. – Tim riley (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "File:Heifetz-commons-cropped.jpg" is lacking date of publication, without which the PD tag cannot be verified
    • The Commons version from which it is taken (File:Heifetz LOC 38890u.jpg) states circa 1920, and is a Library of Congress picture with no known restrictions. Ought I to add anything to the cropped version I have derived from it? – Tim riley (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm...from the looks of the Commons version, 1920 refers to date of creation, not publication - might want to double-check that. Assuming that it was published c. 1920, then the cropped version should have the same licensing tags as the original plus {{RetouchedPicture}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unfortunately one cannot confirm the publication date one way or another. There is another Heifetz picture in Commons that I could crop, but as it was uploaded by the photographer I am in some doubt what copyright tag I could use for a cropped version. Grateful for your thoughts. Tim riley (talk) 07:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Meh, I think we can assume that LoC is correct in saying there are no restrictions on its use. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ischia image should only have one of the two licensing tags it currently has
    • I am afraid I don't know enough of the mechanics of Commons to presume to remove one of the tags. I wonder, as you know about such things, if you would be able to do so. Plainly the uploader took the picture him/herself and has released it for general use. – Tim riley (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Belshazzar's Feast an oratorio or a cantata?
    • Excellently spotted! It is a cantata. "Oratorio" amended accordingly. – Tim riley (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anon in love or in Love?
  • "A minor String Quintet" or "String Quartet in A Minor"?
    • Both are correct. The terms are used interchangeably in Kennedy etc. Not (unlike the next point but one) a usage where internal consistency is customary. – Tim riley (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he said that without an india-rubber he would be sunk" - either make this a direct quote or reword for tone
  • 60-year or sixty-year career? Be consistent
    • Very good point. I have now checked the article for figs/words in numbers. – Tim riley (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence about his lack of influence on the music of younger composers seems out of place where it is
    • I rather agree, but an earlier reviewer asked for it, above, and this seems the only place to put it. Very pleased to move it if you can see a better spot. – Tim riley (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've tried moving it, feel free to revert. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Better. I'll leave there, or thereabouts, I think. Thank you. Tim riley (talk) 07:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Capriccio burlesco or Burlesco?
    • The former. Again, thank you for your sharp eye. – Tim riley (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The lyric poet in Walton, who had so far been hidden under a mask of irony, fully emerged." - quote should be attributed in-text
  • Generally by more consistent in how you title his pieces. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is most helpful, thank you. Grateful for any further steer on the images, as above. – Tim riley (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I helped to peer-review this, and I encouraged Tim to nominate it here, so it would be perverse of me not to support it. I have a few suggestions:-

  • Last sentence of the lead; as the "best-known" works have been listed in the opening paragraph, we don't need more or less the same listing at the end of lead. I suggest the final sentence be amended to something like: "His most popular works continue to be frequently performed in the 21st century". Or similar
    • Done. Also added that all WW's works were recorded for CD by 2010 – Tim riley (talk) 07:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edith's portrait should be attributed to Fry in the caption
  • After first mention, it's not necessary to specify "Edward J." Dent - the surname will do.
  • Finally, with reference to an earlier review comment, while the odd musical example might be useful, such is by no means a necessity in a biographical article, and I would certainly not expect to see detailed analysis of such examples here; this belongs in the articles for the specific pieces.

All in all, this will be a fine addition to the (growing) number of featured composer articles. Brianboulton (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for this, and for your encouragement – greatly valued. – Tim riley (talk) 07:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I proofread the article around at the beginning of the peer review and again just now, finding little to correct except a few punctuation marks. I think it is a very well-organized and efficient discussion of Walton's life, career and music, with enough analysis and critical comment, but without being too technical. It is well illustrated, thoroughly referenced and its bibliography includes a succinct list of the most important books about Walton. I think it exemplifies Wikipedia's best work and support the nomination without reservation. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been an image review yet? Karanacs (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I glanced at them and they seem fine, but a second opinion would be welcome. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/William_Walton/archive1&oldid=392512321"