Wikipedia:Peer review/Connotations (Copland)/archive1

Connotations (Copland)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, after considerable work in expanding its overall depth and scope, I have reached a point where feedback to further improve its quality might be both welcome and beneficial. The ultimate goal is to being this article to FA status, which would be timely given this is the centenary of composer Aaron Copland's birth and the subject of this article is a seminal though lesser-known musical composition in his output. I look forward to this review as a collaborative effort.

Thanks, Jonyungk (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I look forward to giving this article a more detailed review in a day or two, though my comments may have to be delivered in instalments. For the moment, here are a few issues relating to sources:

• A number of your listed sources require subscription for accesss; this should be noted in each such case - you can use the (subscription required) template. This applies to each of the New York Times articles and also to the Musical quarterly article.
  • Will do. Thanks for pointing this out.
• The fifth item in the bibliography is described as "Bernstein score for Copland Connotations". From the link, I can't understand why this score is described as Bernstein's. What is the distinction between this source and the sixth item on the list? Can you identify which are the citations to these scores?
  • The fifth item is Bernstein's personal copy of the score, with a personal inscription on the cover page from the composer. The sixth item is Boosey & Hawkes' info page for the piece.
• In the citations I see "Bernstein and Haws"
  • Should be "Hawes," which I will correct. The other author of this source is Bernstein's brother, Benton. Maybe rephrase this footnote as "B. Bernstein and Hawes"?
• I also see page ranges with hyphens. These should be ndashes. There is also inconsistency in the format of ranges. e.g. "78-9" and "60-61"
  • Not to disagree but some clarification would be welcome as other editors have recently changed n-dashes to hyphens in other articles on which I've worked.
    • I think there other editors don't know their MOS, and certainly don't know their FAC. Trust me! Brianboulton (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, one inconsistency remains—"60-61"—as I wasn't sure "60-1" would be either awkward or confusing. Feedback, please.
    • I don't find "60–1" confusing, but perhaps others might. Leave it and see if anyone else picks it up. Brianboulton (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

More in due course. Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

More comments Here are some prose comments relating to the lead, and some more general comments on the article's present structure:

• The "Great Depression" is not a point in time, but covered much of the 1930s, so you should be more precise in marking the end of Copland's "dissonant" period.
• Link dodecaphonic. Or better, as you use the term "twelve-tone" later, use it here.
• "While the composer had produced other orchestral works contemporary to Connotations, it was his first purely symphonic work since his Third Symphony." Doesn't mean much without a date for the third symphony, and I wonder if the distinction between "orchestral" and "symphonic" works is clear enough to make this point worthwhile.
• "in pieces" → "with pieces"
• "with New York Philharmonic" → "with the New York Philharmonic"
• "More recent performances by Pierre Boulez, Edo de Waart and Sixten Ehrling have been acknowledged to show the music in a more positive light". I think, to maintain its sense, the sentence needs commas after "performances" and "Ehrling", and you should indicate by whom these performances are acknowledged to show the music in a better light.
• "Nevertheless, while the overall reputation of the music remains mixed." This is not a complete sentence.
• John Adams needs a link. I dont know if "Michael Andrews" is this one
• "which include" → "who include"
• I doubt the ordinary reader will understand what you mean by the music's "angularities".
• The short "Instrumentation" and "Dedication" sections are not the most obvious way of leading into the article. In fact, looking down the TOC, the sections don't appear to be in a particularly helpful sequence. In particular, I believe the article should begin with a "Background" section expanding on the background information given in the lead. I outline below what I think would be a more logical order:

• Background
• Composition (incorpoarting most of what you have allocated to Structure, Significance of Title and Resemblance)
• Performance and reception history, subdivided between initial performance and subsequent revivals. This would include most of the stuff in "Other factors...", "Composer efforts", and "Boulez revival". There may well be too much of this information in the article, and you may want to consider some thinning out here.
• Analysis, incorporating the "Copland and serialism" and "Charges of academicism" sections.
• Legacy and influence.

I'm not suggesting this proposed article structure as a blueprint, but it's closer to the general framework of WP articles on classical music, particularly those that aspire to FAC.

I'll get back when I can. Do you have a particular timescale for developing this article, or is time of no special consequence? Brianboulton (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Since the anniversary of Connotations' premiere was last September, there doesn't seem to be a particular date, anniversary or otherwise, for which to shoot. Personally, I'm for taking whatever time needed to get this article right and your comments on structure underline the fact that I'm perhaps a bit rusty on this. I also know your schedule is pretty hectic so I'm willing to be flexible. The reason I presented the article to PR at this time was that I had reached a limit on what I could contribute on content and needed help with further shaping and refinement. Jonyungk (talk) 15:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment from Tim riley – my very few comments on this fine article are on the article talk page. They are minor drafting points; the substance of the article seems to me to be excellent. This is a side of Copland of which I (and I imagine many other music lovers) know nothing. Most interesting. I agree with Brianboulton's remarks, above, on drafting except that I find "60–1" awkward. I'm not sure I have anything useful to add about the structure and layout of the article. Please let me know when it makes its way in due course to FAC. – Tim Riley (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)