Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji/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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 18 December 2020 [1].

Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji

[edit]
Nominator(s): Toccata quarta (talk) 11:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji, an English composer, music critic, pianist and writer who is perhaps best known as the author of piano epics lasting anywhere between two and nine hours, and for having gone into self-imposed obscurity for some four decades. Sorabji's life and music have long been shrouded in myth, but this situation has improved considerably in recent years. The article draws on the recent scholarly writings that have addressed the myths, misconceptions and sensationalism that pervade much of the non-scholarly discourse on Sorabji, and presents a more thorough, objective portrait of him as a person and artist. The entry is coming fresh off a peer review and I look forward to this FAC (my first one in my nearly ten years on Wikipedia). Whatever its outcome, I believe the text presents one of the most fascinating and colorful biographies and creative legacies, musical or other, of the 20th century, and I hope reviewers derive at least some enjoyment from it. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Ajpolino

[edit]

Hi Toccata quarta, I've no particular knowledge of Sorabji, or the finer points of music, so I'll be reviewing the prose from the perspective of a non-expert who stumbled upon the page. Making notes as I read:

Otherwise, an excellent article and an engaging read. I read it in one sitting. After seeing your thoughts on the above, I'll be happy to support. Thanks for the read! Ajpolino (talk) 04:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks; I hope the changes I have just made to the article have adequately addressed the issues you listed above. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Moved to support. Thanks again, and I hope you're staying well. Ajpolino (talk) 07:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the vote of support, as well as for your wishes, which I can only echo. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Smerus

[edit]

I contributed to the peer review. Am happy to support this for FA but I think it may need an image review (an area where I lack any expertise) to make sure they are all in order - e.g. the book jacket illustration looks as if it might be dodgy - @Nikkimaria:? --Smerus (talk) 08:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the endorsement (and, belatedly, for your feedback at PR)! Toccata quarta (talk) 08:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Hi @Nikkimaria: Apologies if I am losing track, does that wrap up the image review? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Once the Busonis are swapped. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this; I have just made the swap. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gerda

[edit]

I took part in the peer review, and liked the exchange. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to discuss two minor points, being happy with the detailed article, and ready to support already: the lead and the TOC.

In the lead, I'd mention the lifelong tendency to seclusion in the very first paragraph, a summary, and begin the second with his birth and parents. Compare other composers such as Frédéric Chopin and Percy Grainger.

I am happy that "Ban" left the TOC since the peer review, but find "Ups and Downs" and "Admirers" not a perfect replacement. How about a level 3 header "Seclusion", or something else to describe the full long period of withdrawing from the public, with level 4 subheaders? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerda, many thanks for the support. I quite like your suggestions above; I have incorporated these into the article and hope they are to your liking. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Aza24

[edit]

Will continue with the music section from where I left off at PR later today. Aza24 (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass

[edit]

As is your first FAC I'll have to do some spotchecks below as well Aza24 (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Refs
  • Would you mind if I submitted a request to get archive links for the online refs? While of course not required, I figure if we can, we may as well
    You mean "In case they go offline one day"? No objection from my side, assuming such a request isn't considered a big favor. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah it shouldn't be a big deal, since the article is so long I've had to submit a bot request. Although I'm not sure if it'll work correctly since you have to manually input that you want it to archive non-dead links (I'm not sure if the bot will do this by default) but no big deal
  • Surely the Washington post should be included somewhere for ref 348?
    Fixed. That was a surprising omission on my part... Toccata quarta (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Anon. (n.d.)." is a little odd for ref 33. If it was a news article without a listed author and date it may make more sense, but as a random web page it seems unnecessary
    Fixed all such cases. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • p./pp.s look good
  • Seems to be all sources of reasonable reliability here
    Good to know! Toccata quarta (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
  • Would be nice to get more identifiers for some of these refs, Abrahams has an OCLC at world cat
    I have added OCLC numbers and further details for all the ones for which I could find such information. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Anon. (1930) is listed as by Sorabji on JSTOR. It also has a different volume number there. Would recommend adding the JSTOR=916600 or doi=10.2307/916600 – or both :) – to the ref
    Fixed all these issues. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • OCLC for McMenamin and one for Owen
    Done. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Titles should be in title case, even if in all caps originally (e.g. FEATURE REVIEW)
    Fixed. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last two Ullen refs are confusing me, they say "In Derus, Kenneth; Ullén, Fredrik (2004)" but don't give what the title of the publication they're "in" is – since the way it's formatting currently implies "Transcendental Studies" is the chapter. Also please an identifier of some kind (ISBN, doi, ISSn); if it's a book you can look it up on World cat for an OCLC
    These relate to Derus, Kenneth; Ullén, Fredrik (2004) and Derus, Kenneth (2009); Ullén, Fredrik (2010), multi-author items that appear earlier in the sources (right after Bechert) and have ASIN identifiers. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah I see, I would say that for ease of access you may want to move these under their coresponding items with a "**" indentation – but I'll leave that up to you
    I tried this possibility but it didn't quite appeal to me, and I can imagine readers looking for the source would expect Ullén to appear near the end of the alphabetical listing. It's probably not a major issue either way, since there are only two Ullén references in the article and it's one of the less prominent sources. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliability looks good
    Thanks. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for addressing the issues thus far, will get to the spot checks this weekend at some point. Aza24 (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem! Incidentally, as far as the sources used in the article are concerned, most of the major ones can be accessed free of charge (and legally) on the internet: Abrahams can be viewed here, Roberge's book can be downloaded from the following page, Owen's oral biography is available here, etc. The only major source that does not exist in this form is Rapoport, but you can at least get page previews and check selected pages of his Sorabji book at Google Books. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks – Pass
[edit]

Soon to do Aza24 (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Roberage 2020: 120, 138, 90b, 337, 215, 250, 41, 9 - good
  • Roberage 2020: 90a not seeing "and destroy his extant manuscripts" or "which comprises 1,001 pages of orchestral score"
    • For the destruction of scores, the relevant statement from Sorabji is, "All I have written since June is a matter of less than two dozen pages and it's quite on the cards that not more than that will be in existence by this time next year!" For the page count, I have just added a ref. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • McMenamin 16 is good
  • more soon
  • Owen: 127, 257, 73, 241 – good
  • random: 238, 365 - good
  • 201, I only see 5 themes at most?
    • As the entry for Third Organ Symphony (1949-53; 305 pp.) in the source mentions, the work has one fugue and six fugal themes. Opus clavicembalisticum and 100 Transcendental Studies have more themes, but these are spread across several independent fugal movements. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Once that final comment above is addressed that should do it; I have no doubts over close paraphrasing or improper citations Aza24 (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Toccata quarta (talk) 06:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you so much for your efforts with this article. Pass for source review & spotchecks Aza24 (talk) 05:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aza24: You are welcome, and many thanks for this! (And, if I may take the opportunity to say so, congratulations on bringing Portrait of a Musician to FA status.) Toccata quarta (talk) 06:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia Support

[edit]
All of my concerns are resolved. (Putting this comment at the top to avoid a collapse template per the template limit problem.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I engaged at the peer review, so may not have much to add on the prose. Starting my section (not a musician).

  • The following MOS items all check out: consistent date formats, no faulty dashes/hyphens, no image caption punctuation issues, no sandwiching of images, no logical punctuation issues that I can detect (without having access to sources), good use of NBSPs, and ps and pps in order within the limits of my eyesight. No HarvRef errors. No citation overkill. External links are appropriate. One WP:WAW adjustment made.
    Thank you. Concerning WAW, I think you meant MOS:WAW. I saw WP:WAW in your edit summary and clicked on it before checking the diff, so I was horrified to contemplate that I might have screwed up in that area. :-) Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Typical me, sorry :) Will look in later when not iPad typing, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a couple of duplicate links, which can probably be justified: they can be checked by installing, User:Evad37/duplinks-alt, but are not a concern.
    I think these are the ones that were discussed at the peer review (Consonance and dissonance and Part (music)), articles that cover multiple concepts, so my rationales probably remain the same. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On WP:WIAFA, crit 2b, is it possible to tighten up or leave off "and other" here: 1.3.1 Ups and downs, musical and other
    Would "Ups and downs in life and music" work? The word "instability" is coming to mind but is a bit POV. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems preferable to "and other", but as you wish, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you; I have changed the heading to this one. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure why you repeat page ranges in the Sources section, when they are given in the References section, but as long as you are consistent, that is fine.
    I followed the citation styles I was exposed to (in part in these sources), though I suppose an online encyclopedia will probably not insist on the page numbers as much as printed sources. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem here, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doublecheck that all citations are in ascending order, sample: Sorabji did not wish to be seen and there was just one brief shot of him waving to the departing camera crew.[101][100] --> should be 100 followed by 101. The way I check these is to do a ctrl-f on ][ to pull up and scroll through every instance of multiple citations).
    Ha! Now this is awesome! I saw the following edit years ago and checked only the diff, which made me believe that refs with names had to precede those without them. I guess such are the limitations of not checking the outcome of a diff from the point of view of a reader, and though I often rely on the "Preview" function, I assumed ref order could do without that. Of course, the reason for this was that I had been careful with the ordering and repeating of the refs and use of the "name" parameter, so I ended up inferring a non-existent policy/practice from an existing one. :-) Anyway, fixed (and thank you). Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure some clever techie person can teach me a better way to fix these :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the period after Ellis belong? To Dr. Havelock Ellis.—in respectful admiration, homage and gratitude ... it looks odd.
    That is how it is reproduced in Roberge's book. I know the MOS allows for silent typographic emendations, but at the very least, it gives the reader some flavor of the peculiarities of Sorabji's prose (just like some of the images in the article illustrate the difficulties involved in deciphering his manuscripts). Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem then, but I will add an inline comment so that future (subsequent :) editors won't inquire. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please take my prose suggestions with the grain of salt (not my strength):

  • No overuse of the dreaded however, subsequently, overall, in total, and their ilk.
  • I do suggest that some of the 29 uses of also might be redundant and could be reviewed. (See the writing exercises at User:Tony1)
    I have just removed a few that I identified as redundant; the others all appear to establish a (necessary) link to what appears earlier in the text. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    All good, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • who set up a trust fund that freed him from the need to work ... that freed his son from the need to work ... to avoid ambiguity on "him"?
    Change "him" to "his family". The failure to refer to his wife in this passage might raise some eyebrows and WP:WAW could even be moderately applicable here (though at least there is "that would provide his family with a life income" later in the article). Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    All set, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:CURRENT, it's always good to avoid the word "recent" when possible and give specific context to time frames ... but interest in it has grown in recent years --> has grown in the 21st century? has grown since year X? has grown since his death ? something for context
    Changed to "since then" (i.e. since the early 2000s). Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Good, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is perhaps stylistic, and is not as overdone and unnecessarily cluttered as I've seen elsewhere, but is it really necessary to include the birth to death range on Trew? Thus, from the early 1910s until 1916, Sorabji studied music with the pianist and composer Charles A. Trew (1854–1929). We have a timeframe and context for when he lived already in the sentence, so does the reader really benefit from that? Examine others similar throughout ... I'm not fussed if you want to keep them, because again, they aren't creating as much unnecessary clutter as I've seen in another FAC.
    I have removed several instances of this but kept the years for his parents and Reginald Best (his probable partner). Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Grand! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this passage:
(1) Thus, from the early 1910s until 1916, Sorabji studied music with the pianist and composer Charles A. Trew (1854–1929). (2) For unknown reasons, Sorabji was not conscripted during World War I, and though he later praised conscientious objectors for their courage, there is no proof he tried to register as one. (3) Around this time, he came to be close to and exchanged ideas with the composers Bernard van Dieren and Cecil Gray, both of whom were also friends with Warlock.
(1) discusses his musical associations, (2) has him not going to war, and (3) comes back to his musical associates. (2) seems out of place, and when reading, I expected (3) to somehow relate to (2), as if they had something to do with conscientious objectors. Not sure how you might fix that ... just odd. Can (2) be placed after (3) ?
Reordered. The documentation is a bit of a mess, but it appears Sorabji had met them by 1920 at the latest. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unclear ...
In connection to this, Sorabji joined the Parsi community
... expat presumably, in England? And one wonders why he wasn't always part of that community, considering his father's ancestry. Maybe a better word than "joined" can be found ... engaged ... grew increasingly part of ... ?
Unfortunately, almost no documents concerning the event or his father's involvement in it survive, but I have added a bit about how Sorabji came join the community. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • huh ??? In the mid-1920s, he befriended the composer Erik Chisholm ... They first met in April 1930 ???
    The article previously stated, "In the mid-1920s, he began correspondence with and befriended Scottish composer Erik Chisholm", but this was changed by GOCE. It probably sounds odd to us, but I guess it wasn't so unusual in the pre-internet age. (Roberge says, "Besides Philip Heseltine and, later, Frank Holliday and Alistair Hinton, Erik Chisholm was Sorabji's closest friend. As with other such acquaintances, contacts were mostly epistolary.") Anyway, would you like the previous version to be restored (and possibly reworded)? Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Something akin to previous better ... no need to feel constrained by GOCE, volunteers like all of us :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have restored some of the earlier version and, much to my surprise, improved the flow of the passage a bit in so doing. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the ambiguity around "he" (lived with his family) again (father or son), also suggest sentence might be split from the previous ? ... but he did not want his son to become a musician and there is little evidence that he lived with his family.
    I raised "this" issue at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2020 September 25, but not much came out of the conversation. The problem is that MOS:SAMESURNAME isn't really equipped to deal with this case ("Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji and his father, Shapurji Sorabji"). Sorabjian literature deals with it by calling the composer Sorabji and his father Shapurji Sorabji, but it would be only a matter of time before someone complains and tries to "correct" the text. References to "family", "wife" and "son" are further complicated by Shapurji Sorabji's three marriages (of which at least one was bigamous). I would prefer to invoke WP:IAR and use "Shapurji Sorabji", but it's not an easy decision to make. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    see below, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here, we are going backwards chronologically to talk about his father, so add "he had returned" ... ? ... After his marriage in 1892, he returned to Bombay ... actually, in this paragraph I am losing track of what is father and what is son, so some tightening would help.
    I tried to avoid ambiguity by assuming that the reader knows Sorabji was active in the field of music, and his father was an industrialist and businessman. Another thing that probably helps is that post-1932 events can be (generally) taken as referring to Sorabji, as his father was no longer alive. I may make further changes depending on your reply to my previous comment. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Would this work? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A major factor in Sorabji's change of attitude was his financial situation. Sorabji's father had returned to Bombay after his marriage in 1892, where he played an important role in the development of India's engineering and cotton machinery industries. He was musically cultured and financed the publication of 14 of Sorabji's compositions between 1921 and 1931, although there is little evidence that he lived with the family and he did not want his son to become a musician. In October 1914, his father set up the Shapurji Sorabji Trust, a trust fund that would provide his family with a life income that would free them of the need to work.
    Absolutely! I have changed the text according to your suggestion, though I switched "his father set up" to "Sorabji's father set up", as the former could be ambiguous. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point, we have already been told earlier that he had a stroke and died so this is repeat info ... Sorabji suffered a mild stroke in June and died later that year; their ashes are buried beside each other --> Sorabji died later that year, and their ashes are buried beside each other.
    Fair enough; I have removed this. Roberge makes the point clearly when he writes, "Best's passing on 29 February 1988 was obviously a blow to Sorabji, who suffered a mild stroke in June." The paragraph quotes Sorabji on how highly he valued Best, so I suppose this is OK. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ah, ha ... I see that you are making a connection between his stroke and Best's passing, so perhaps that could be more clear, by bringing in the "obviously a blow". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added a short comment on Sorabji being impacted by Best's death and restored the passage about the stroke (as I understand your comment as saying that this information can be reintroduced into the text in that case). Toccata quarta (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me: I anticipate supporting once these nitpicks are dealt with, and the sourcing/spotcheck review is complete. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All good on my end ... please ping me when Aza24 is done with the source review, so I can formally support (or the Coords can consider me a support once the source work is completed satisfactorily). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 12 December 2020 (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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Kaikhosru_Shapurji_Sorabji/archive1&oldid=995054996"