Talk:Clara Schumann/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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

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:

Review

Overall

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 "www.musicacademyonline.com" 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 "brainpickings.org" 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)

Copyediting

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)

Copyright

• The text does not appear to plagiarize the sources in my spot checks.
• File:Clara Schumann 1878.jpg has a warning on it that it needs to indicate why it is public domain in the United States of America.
• File:Clara Wieck im Alter von 15 Jahren.jpg and other images have the same warning. These should all be fixed.

  Hoping for help from RexxS for the 2 pics. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

  I'm pretty sure most of these fall under {{commons:Template:PD-US-expired}}, which would resolve the warnings about US copyright. I'm unfortunately not an expert in this area, however. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

  I checked, all that haven't been deleted are fine, all that was needed was {{PD-US-expired}} tagging. Montanabw^(talk) 22:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

  File:Julius Giere - Clara Wieck im Alter von 15 Jahren (Lithographie 1835).jpg is fixed. The above redlink is the same image. Montanabw^(talk) 22:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

  Is that fied then, Reaper Eternal? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  I'm pretty sure it's all good now—sorry about the delay; I've been busy for a few days. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:40, 15 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)

Other

• 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)