Wikipedia:Peer review/Requiem (Mozart)/archive1

Requiem (Mozart)

Its a good article, I think a couple of minor changes here and there on this page would be of great benefit.--GorillazFanAdam 01:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's a decent article. But the "citation needed" tags need to be addressed by citations. Also some of the myths/realities need citations, such as the "Some scholars believe..." I'd have to say that the introduction is awefully brief. Perhaps it could be expanded somewhat? Possibly also the introduction could summarize what the musical piece is about? I.e. if Mozart was commisioned to produce this piece, what were the requirements? What was the music trying to express? (Sorry, I'm not classical music expert.) If the music is, as the name implies, a prayer for the departed, to whom was it intended? Finally are there any illustrations that could be added? Thank you. — RJH 02:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the introduction is too short and the last clause is awkward: "not only for its music, but also its obscure composition history"
The "composition and completion" section needs to be broken up. I advise one broad section for the musical elements of the piece (orchestration, form, analysis) and one broad section for the historical elements (commission, composition, completions, myths). These could each be broken down in the subsections I have mentioned or otherwise.
- The section on orchestration could include discussion of how much Mozart actually orchestrated himself
- A bassett horn to the best of my knowledge is not a type of tenor clarinet, although they are certainly related. Try similar.
Citations are needed.
There is very little discussion of the actual music.
The article says "it has been given its own translation" Who translated it? Why would this translation be in anyway superior to traditional translations of the Requiem Mass. This confuses me.
Modern completions. A sentence or two about what makes these different would be nice. (ex. Robert Levin makes use of the aforementioned Amen fugue at the end of the Lacrymosa, etc.)

I will do what I can to help you with some of these things myself. Best wishes. =MarkBuckles 20:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The lead has been considerably fleshed out and I've changed the definition of basset horn to a type of alto clarinet. There is a limit to how much we can cite things; Mozart scholars tend not to publish their findings online. An unavoidable part of Wikipedia is that you take things on trust. In my opinion, the cititation tags are ugly and half of them should be purged. They're used too much, anyway: one example I came across recently was in Purcell's biography. The article said "Many people consider Purcell to be the finest English composer ever" (or something similar) and someone had put the cititation template next to it. The claim is undoubtedly true, but how on earth do you verify it by an online reference?

Anyway, enough pontificating. The article has improved immesureably recently, and while it's not ready to become a featured article, if it isn't a good article I do not know what is. (By the way, as far as we know, the Requiem was written in no one's particular memory). Thank you.Moreschi 19:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations do not need to be from online sources. Scores of books have been written specifically on this piece. These should be referenced and cited IMHO. I plan on helping with this some in the next month or so. -MarkBuckles 18:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]