Talk:Jacques-Louis Monod

Composer project review

I've reviewed this article as part of the Composers project review of its B-class articles. This article was probably raised to B by a bot, since the Biography project had given it a B rating.

I find this article to be of Start quality; it is missing significant details that a typical composer biography should have. (This in spite of the length of the article.) My full review is on the comments page; questions and comments should be left here or on my talk page. Magic♪piano 15:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

In the highly extraordinary case of the life and legacy of Monod's, I'm afraid we must occassionally reconsider the overly rigid rules laid forth by writers/editors of Wikipedia and assume that all statements made on Monod are true until proven otherwise. Monod's legendary career has yet to be written and the public would be at a great disservice to readers if various significant information on his oeuvre would be omitted merely for reasons of some ill-adequate rules in Wikipedia. The facts are that some artists have transcended the media and accompanying hype: Monod is one of those rare artists who has had little interest in generating publicity; unlike his avant-garde peers and former colleagues from Paris and Darmstadt, who extoll in media support and have made careers with the hype. The fact that far greater attention has been paid in the media for ex. to the careers of Boulez, Stockhausen and Nono does not necessarily validate their musics, nor is this attention any indication that Monod's oeuvre is of lesser merit; on the contrary, the media has not only made a "living" for themselves, but also for those whom they have classified as the avant-garde. The prudent and ethical choice would be to publish as many details on Monod as available in Wikipedia, since few studies are currently available on Monod, until rigorous research is undertaken on his life and legacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.91.124 (talk) 06:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem with "reconsidering the overly rigid rules" is that this is your opinion. Please describe a coherent policy by which it could be determined which articles should have the rules relaxed (I suggest you do this on the Verifiability talk page, not here). Additionally, why should anyone take your say-so on this or any other subject? (I don't claim to be authoritative on anything other than my opinions, which I try to avoid putting in the article mainspace. Everything else is derived from sources I am prepared to list.)

There is much in this article where there is no way to verify what is said. For all anyone knows, the uncited text in this article is entirely fictional. The fact that the subject of the article does not seek publicity is beside the point (although it may make the biographer's job more difficult). I've reviewed many articles that describe poorly documented individuals (think Renaissance composers). Quality articles can be written under these circumstances, so this subject is not really an exception.

The "prudent and ethical choice" is not to subvert Wikipedia's policies, but to find a different forum (for example, a scholarly journal or a book), and publish what you know there, according to that publisher's standards. Once that has happened, feel free to reference that material here. Until then, this article does not meet the publisher's (Wikipedia's) guidelines, and is subject to having uncited claims (especially WP:NPOV and WP:PEACOCK commentary) removed.

By the way, I agree with you that mention in press (Boulez, Stockhausen, Nono) does not necessarily correlate to importance. (I have no interest in most modern music, so I have no axe to grind in this.) If Monod is really important, it will show at least in part in the notability of his students, as well as statements from them, his collaborators, and others, who claim him as an influence (all of which is in short supply in this article, by the way). Magic♪piano 15:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Referencing

User:Kleinzach has removed the {{refimprove}} tag I placed. I stand by my contention that the things that are listed in External links/References likely do not adequately source the text of this article. Of the items listed, all but two are little more than concert or publication reviews, and do not speak to Monod's life in any significant detail. Of the other two, one is Grove, to which I do not have access. The other is the NYT piece by Allan Kazinn, which contains a short biography, lacking in much of the detail present in this article. Are you claiming that the bulk of this article is actually sourceable to Grove? Magic♪piano 02:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, Magic. There may perhaps be a conflict here between use of the "refimprove" tag and the "morefootnotes" one, which produces a message calling for more inline references. It appears that Kleinzach is interpreting the former to mean simply that more references need adding to the reflist. As a matter of fact, I find only three inline citations in this entire, very long article, and one of these I cannot verify directly. This is the one pointing to "Michael Steinberg in the New Grove". The reference list includes a link, but it will only work if you have a personal account with Oxford Music Online. Since I have access to this site only through my university library, the linking URL cannot be used there—I need to know the subject of the article including the "citation by Michael Steinberg" (a "contributor" search for Steinberg produces a list of 59 articles). There is a (very short) article on Monod in New Grove, and it is by Steinberg. Further, it does seem to contain the claimed information about poets whose works Monod has set, but the reference could equally well have been to remark quoted from Steinberg in an entirely different article not by him—there is no way to tell. So, I would say that the way the list of references is formatted is itself very doubtful. The point you raise—that there are nowhere near enough inline citations—is far more serious. Steinberg's New Grove article on Monod is only two short paragraphs, and practically nothing in this Wikipedia article is verified by it, except for that list of poets.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I take the points you've made. I certainly agree that the references should be copy-edited. I removed the tags in the context of the BLP content deletion problem (I assume you know what has been happening), as part of a sweep that I have been doing today (see here). If you are involved in detailed work on this article, then please restore the tags as you see fit. If the article is on your watchlists then it will be in good hands and we won't have content being removed. --Kleinzach 09:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This article has been on my watchlist ever since I reviewed it -- I tend to keep track of articles like this that appear to be the product of editors with potential POV issues, especially if they engage in discussion (as the anon editor responded above). I think it has been long enough that some of the more problematic material in this article ought to be removed. Formatting of the references aside, there is no real reliable source here to back up most of the content. BLP watchdogs do not appear to have hit this article, but in its present state, it presents a clear target, and there is no obvious reason to support the retention of much of the material here. Magic♪piano 13:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Jacques-Louis Monod/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

==Composers Project Assessment of Jacques-Louis Monod: 2009-01-9== This is an assessment of article Jacques-Louis Monod by a member of the Composers project, according to its assessment criteria. This review was done by Magicpiano. If an article is well-cited, the reviewer is assuming that the article reflects reasonably current scholarship, and deficiencies in the historical record that are documented in a particular area will be appropriately scored. If insufficient inline citations are present, the reviewer will assume that deficiencies in that area may be cured, and that area may be scored down. Adherence to overall Wikipedia standards (WP:MOS, WP:WIAGA, WP:WIAFA) are the reviewer's opinion, and are not a substitute for the Wikipedia's processes for awarding Good Article or Featured Article status. ===Origins/family background/studies=== Does the article reflect what is known about the composer's background and childhood? If s/he received musical training as a child, who from, is the experience and nature of the early teachers' influences described? ok ===Early career=== Does the article indicate when s/he started composing, discuss early style, success/failure? Are other pedagogic and personal influences from this time on his/her music discussed? Professional bio ok; personal and composing details lacking. ===Mature career=== Does the article discuss his/her adult life and composition history? Are other pedagogic and personal influences from this time on his/her music discussed? Professional bio ok; personal and composing details lacking. ===List(s) of works=== Are lists of the composer's works in WP, linked from this article? If there are special catalogs (e.g. Köchel for Mozart, Hoboken for Haydn), are they used? If the composer has written more than 20-30 works, any exhaustive listing should be placed in a separate article. A limited works list is presented. ===Critical appreciation=== Does the article discuss his/her style, reception by critics and the public (both during his/her life, and over time)? Style discussed; some critical commentary (largely uncited); little public reception. ===Illustrations and sound clips=== Does the article contain images of its subject, birthplace, gravesite or other memorials, important residences, manuscript pages, museums, etc? Does it contain samples of the composer's work (as composer and/or performer, if appropriate)? (Note that since many 20th-century works are copyrighted, it may not be possible to acquire more than brief fair use samples of those works, but efforts should be made to do so.) If an article is of high enough quality, do its images and media comply with image use policy and non-free content policy? (Adherence to these is needed for Good Article or Featured Article consideration, and is apparently a common reason for nominations being quick-failed.) No images or sound. This is a significant minus for an article this long. ===References, sources and bibliography=== Does the article contain a suitable number of references? Does it contain sufficient inline citations? (For an article to pass Good Article nomination, every paragraph possibly excepting those in the lead, and every direct quotation, should have at least one footnote.) If appropriate, does it include Further Reading or Bibliography beyond the cited references? No references or inline citations; article is tagged. This is a significant minus due to the types of statements made in the article. ===Structure and compliance with WP:MOS=== Does the article comply with Wikipedia style and layout guidelines, especially WP:MOS, WP:LEAD, WP:LAYOUT, and possibly WP:SIZE? (Article length is not generally significant, although Featured Articles Candidates may be questioned for excessive length.) Article prose, formatting, and lead all need work. ===Things that may be necessary to pass a Good Article review=== Much needs to be done; article is not anywhere near this standard. Article text formatting needs work (e.g. quotation methods, punctuation, inconsistent styles) Article prose needs work (WP:MOS) Article requires more inline citations (WP:CITE) Article lead needs work (WP:LEAD) Article needs (more) images and/or other media (MOS:IMAGE) ===Summary=== Someone has put a great deal of work into this article. I'm afraid I must say I do not think it merits even a B rating; there is too much wrong with this article, despite its volume, to qualify. An article like this is supposed to be a biography. This article is lacking in substantial details about Monod, or citable evidence that such information is unavailable: beyond his early years, there is little personal biographical information (did he marry, have children, where did he live when) there is little "compositional biography": I do not know when he wrote his early works, what they were like. I do not know the names of most of his works, or even how many he has written, or when they were written. there is little view of the public reception of his performances or his compositions there is limited view of the critical reception of his performances or his compositions he is claimed to have published music commentary; there is not even a selected bibliography Beyond the factual issues, there are a sizable number WP:MOS-related issues (which I can enumerate some of if asked), and the writing is in need of copyediting, as at least some of it appears to have been written by editors whose English is not that good. There is also a fair amount of WP:NPOV or WP:PEACOCK language in the article, which, given the complete lack of references, is a serious problem. Article is Start-class. Magic♪piano 15:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 15:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 19:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)