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 User:GrahamColm 18:19, 9 February 2013‎ [1].

---

Richard Wagner[edit]

Nominator(s): Smerus (talk) 08:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because...together with a number of other editors I have been working over recent weeks to raise the article to FA status; with a particular hope that the article can feature as FA on 22 May 2013, the bicentenary of Wagner's birth. The page is well-watched and many comments have been received during this process, as can be seen from the talk page; we have therefore not sent the article for a formal peer review for FA (although it had one for GA not too long ago).Smerus (talk) 08:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Ellipses generally don't need to be bracketed
• "Wagner wanted the first complete cycle to be performed in a new, specially designed opera house" - source?
• Magee 2000 or 2001? Ashman 1988 or 1982? Gutman or Guttman? Check correspondence between footnotes and references - this will be quite time-consuming
• FN175: missing italics
• FN195: page in Ross? Page for FN199? 212? 213? You've got a few footnotes without pages where they seem to be needed
• FN188: link returns error
• Donington: missing comma
• Foreign-language sources should be notated as such
• Publisher for John?
• Laibach link is dead and link checker reports other problems

Need a thorough checking here. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I understand your 9th point, as I see a publisher in the article. Regarding your 5th point—all those references are Internet ones. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these copyediting points, I will deal with them in the next day or two if no one else does. Please note both foreign-language sources are now correctly notated as such.--Smerus (talk) 14:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Nikkimaria's points have now been addressed by other editors and myself. I point out the following:

• "Wagner wanted the first complete cycle to be performed in a new, specially designed opera house" - source? - This is in fact addressed and sourced earlier in the article when discussing A Communication to My Friends, but I have now rephrased the passage, re-cited the original source, and given an additional source.
• FN188: link returns error (Laibach) - relocated page and given access date. The new page seems permanent.
• Ashman - this source seemed to me suspect (details about Tannhauser in a book about The Dutchman), so I have replaced it with another citation.
• Magee (2000) - another editor has used the US edition which is from 2001. I have the 2000 UK edition, and have substituted this and checked all the page references.
• Ross: I have removed this quote, and its supposed source, which are only visible by subscription and anyway do not make any significant contribution to the article. As regards other internet citations, see the comment of Toccata quarta above.
• Publisher for John? - corrected.

Best, --Smerus (talk) 13:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments by Johnbod:
• "In 1833, Wagner's older brother Carl Albert..." - not previously introduced. Were there other siblings? I'd work any into the childhood years section.
• " as choir master in Würzburg" - for what? A school, a church, the opera house?

...ore later. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sorted both these, thanks. --Smerus (talk) 09:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added the 2nd link in "the unsuccessful May Uprising broke out, in which Wagner played a minor supporting role" - if that article is accurate, "minor supporting role" is defence counsel talk. An "active part" perhaps?
• Don't we have a more idiomatic translation of: "I shall never write an Opera more." and "At a specially-appointed Festival, I propose, some future time,"?
• I think something should be added about his growing reputation in the late 1860s & early 1870s, presumably on the back of Tannhauser, Meistersingers & Lohengrin (Dutchman?), which were I think widely performed by the end of the 1860s.

If we're talking about growing reputation in that epriod, I think it would be more about the first performances of Tristan, Mastersingers and the first two Ring operas. Tannhauser, Dutchman and Lohengrin had been around for a while and I believe that Rienzi was just about the most popular of the lot.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'reputation' is not so easy to establish - but I have added a note indicating the spread of performances during this period.--Smerus (talk) 09:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "he nevertheless reworked both the Dutchman and Tannhäuser on several occasions". You might add that different versions are still performed and recorded.
• I certainly don't think the images should all be on the right, as suggested below, but most of them are fixed too small, at 130/150px, especially later in the article. There is space, & the MOS discourages fixing at small sizes.
• I'm not sure Rossini can be said to have "resisted his influence" as he must have been in his seventies when he made his famous joke, & had hardly composed for decades.
• Is there a case for a few audio clips dotted around?
  • • That's it. Generally a very good read & certainly FA quality. Johnbod (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many thanks, Johnbod. I will try to fix most of these points on the lines you suggest. The translation is Ashton Eliis's which although highly Victorian is the standard one used - I know of no others. I will think about the images. Audio clips are difficult because of the scale of the works. Best, --Smerus (talk) 09:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support though further polishing points below may still improve it. Johnbod (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Smerus, rather overlinked. Please see my edit on that count.
• "and the elaborate use of leitmotifs: musical themes associated with individual characters, places, ideas or plot elements"—you can use a dash, but not a colon or semicolon.
• "Unlike most other opera composers,"—you could lose the "other".
• "Wagner's life was characterized, until his last decades, by political exile, turbulent love affairs, poverty and repeated flight from his creditors."—a bit bumpy. Perhaps re-order? "Until his last decades, W...". And there's a "decades" again, two sentences later.
• Personal opinion: wouldn't it be better visually to have the pics all right-sided?
• The music-language section ... could include much more technical stuff, but it is a summary article, I suppose. Tony (talk) 08:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

many thanks for this. I have gone through the changes 2-4 you propose, but as for the pics it is better I think to have people 'facing in'. As this article is for Wagner himself, I think it would be wrong to overload it with 'technical stuff', which can be found in other articles in the Wagner category. Best, --Smerus (talk) 09:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fine nomination—certainly in terms of cr. 1a, and probably other criteria, this is worthy of FA status.

• "In Biebrich Wagner began work on Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg, the idea for which had originally occurred to him in 1845,[78] but which he had resolved to develop during a visit he had made to Venice with the Wesendoncks in 1860, where he was inspired by Titian's painting The Assumption of the Virgin."—Can this huge winding sentence be tamed? And "for which the idea" might be better word order.
• Followed by a stub: "This opera is Wagner's only mature comedy.
• Then: "Between 1861 and 1864 he also tried to have Tristan und Isolde produced in Vienna. Despite numerous rehearsals, the opera remained unperformed, and gained a reputation as being "impossible", which further added to Wagner's financial woes."—This is not the best para ... Is "also" necessary? "Impossible" in what sense—to perform? to listen to? Maybe "further" is not redundant here; I haven't looked at the previous context.
• "The indiscreet affair scandalized Munich and Wagner also fell into disfavour amongst members of the court, who were suspicious of his influence on the king." I'd be more comfortable with a comma before "and" ... but it's partly personal style. Is "also" needed? "Among" is usually preferred nowadays to "amongst". Was it all members of the court who disapproved? (The current comma indicates this meaning.) Tony (talk) 09:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for these comments. I have copyedited, using many of your suggestions,and added a new reference , to clarify.--Smerus (talk) 12:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding "with leading members of the court"—just some, or all? If the former, then something like "many", "some" or "several" might be useful. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

now clarified.--Smerus (talk) 11:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Leaning to support A most impressive expansion of a very important—perhaps the most important—opera-related article. Many thanks to the major players in this project.

• Caveat: I contributed some of the prose used in the Bayreuth section, though I do not consider myself in any way a major contributor. The article has 8000 words of which maybe 150 are mine.
• At an early stage in the article's development I left talkpage notes for the benefit of the major editors. Most of these seem to have been acted on; one that hasn't, and which I think should be reconsidered, is the retention of the Mahler image. I felt then, and do now, that Mahler's association with Wagner's music (the pair newer met; W died when M was still, metaphorically, in short pants) is not considerable enough to warrant an image in an already profusely illustrated article. Though Mahler did indeed conduct Wagner's operas, he never did at Bayreuth; he conducted works by many composers, yet his image doesn't decorate their articles. Not a sticking point for me, but worth a reconsideration.
• At least two uncited paragraphs: the second of the "Film portrayals" section and the intro. to the "Controversies" section.
• I'd find an alternative word to "putative". Hardly anyone knows precisely what it means.

I've only a few minutes online time now - will revist tomorrow with any further comments. Brianboulton (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, thanks for these comments. My responses so far -

• • I have added citations as you suggest, except for the final sentences of the first paragraph on "Controversies" which are really a mini-lead for the following paragraphs - it would I think be otiose to add further citations when each point is dealt with specifically in the following paras.
  • I can't find 'putative', but would point out that this is not (yet) Simple English Wikipedia. :-} !!Later - have now found it. In fact I have recast the section, as a consequence of which the superfluous passage containing the putatively egregious offending word has been expurgated.
  • On Mahler - he is there to illustrate W.'s influence on music and the para cites support for him as an example, specifically Taruskin's comments on the music Mahler composed. This seems to me to justify the pic, but I welcome any further opinions.

Best, --Smerus (talk) 09:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Mahler never was a sticking point. I have upgraded to full support. Brianboulton (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and Comments
• "In January 1828 he first heard Beethoven's 7th Symphony and then, in March, Beethoven's 9th Symphony (both in the Gewandhaus)." could be reworded to prevent Beethoven being mentioned twice.
• "together with the collapse of the theatre company employing him" feels a bit clumsy. Can it be reworded?

 Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 21:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both points now dealt with - thanks, --Smerus (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by SandyGeorgia[edit]

Not yet ... multiple:

1. Image caption: "The Bayreuth Festspielhaus today", pls review WP:MOSDATE#Precise language. There are four uses of "today" in the article.
2. Is this correct MOS:LQ? "Each stone is red with my blood and yours". Unsure ... pls review throughout.
3. I don't understand the "now" here ... "The Festspielhaus finally opened on 13 August 1876 with Das Rheingold, now taking its place as the first evening of the premiere of the complete Ring cycle."
4. See here and here for discussions of the overuse of however; please review throughout. There are 14 instances of "however", and most of them don't seem necessary.

   Similarly, please review "now" and "therefore". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Sample: Wagner was determined to set it to music, and therefore persuaded his family to allow him music lessons.[10] What is the therefore adding? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

5. Multiple citations are missing page numbers ... since the short notes don't link directly to the long footnote, I've not checked to see if all need page ranges, but suspect many do.
6. Prose ... While Bayreuth presented a useful front for Nazi culture, and Wagner's music was used at many Nazi events,[242] many in the Nazi hierarchy did not share Hitler's enthusiasm for Wagner's operas and resented attending his lengthy epics at Hitler's insistence. ... Many ... many ... repetitive and vague.

   Now contains "as a whole"-- we can do better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   " ... the Nazi hierarchy as a whole did not share Hitler's enthusiasm for Wagner's operas and resented attending these lengthy epics at Hitler's insistence." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

7. It is possible that Wagner's music was used at the Dachau concentration camp ... it is possible according to whom or what? Weasly.
8. Jean-Jacques Nattiez has also applied psychoanalytical techniques to Wagner's life and works.[235] ... and ?? This sentence doesn't tell me anything.

   Better (still doesn't tell us much, but at least we have attribution). SandyGeorgia (Talk)

I suggest further prose review and tightening ... these are samples only. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments. I have rectified points 1,3 and 6. (The caption on the picture, which has been in the article for quite sometime, in fact turned out to be incorrect). As regards point 7, I suggest this is not weaselly at all - the source cited deals with the suggestion and the probability of its correctness in very great detail, which would be out of place in the article. Point 8; the sentence tells you that Mr N. has interpreted W's life according to psychoanalytic theories, and indicates, in the context of the paragraph, that this is just one way of approaching Wagner and his works. Again a detailed exposition of Nattiez would be WP:UNDUE but the cited source will give readers more information. I am pretty sure I can reduce the number of "however"s - I will review presently the other points you have made. Best, --Smerus (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS Point 2: This is correct per MOS:LQ, and so are all the quotations I have cited in my contributions to the article. I do not believe that 100% adherence to MOS:LQ as to positions of full stops and commas is a precondition of FA, but correctme if I am wrong on this.--Smerus (talk) 10:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PPS point 4. reduced howevers to 3, one of which is in a citation.--Smerus (talk) 10:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re point 5. I don't qute understand this. Where page citations are given, I have checked them of course, and they are correct. (For what it is worth, I have experience of this sort of thing from my academic publications). Where there is a single number this means that, despite SandyGeorgia's 'suspicions', there is no 'page range' involved. Where there is no page number these are references to web locations. If SandyGeorgia (or any reviewer) has particular citations in mind, please indicate which these are. Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 10:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re point 8: For clarity, I have added Nattiez's book to the sources and cited it in a note to the text.--Smerus (talk) 10:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On point 7, it needs attribution to avoid weasle. According to whom will solve the issue. We shouldn't expect our readers to track down a source to understand why the sentence is there. Point 8, the setence tells us nothing, and unless you tell us what source said what about the significance of this psychoanalytic work, I suspect original research. There is no discernible reason for that sentence in the text; if there is one, according to sources, please give it. On point 5, we are still missing page ranges. On point 2, logical quotation, yes, FAs should strive to get it right (although it's unlikely LQ alone would hold up promotion). I still don't understand: Wagner remarked to Cosima: "Each stone is red with my blood and yours".[112] looks like a complete thought, sentence, and that the period should be inside the quote. What was the full quote? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Points 7,8 I have copyedited/rewritten. I don't think, by the way, it is a reviewer's role to 'suspect' - what about WP:AGF? - though of course the role is to query, where there may be grounds for doing so. Point 5, please indicate which notes you believe are lacking page ranges. Point 2. I am presently 2000 miles away from my library so can't check this, but I am pretty sure I am right. What is not to understand? Probably something along the lines of '....my blood and yours, but it was worth it all the same.' Best, --Smerus (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re point 2: I have now reviewed and made one or two corrections.--Smerus (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revisit by SandyGeorgia:

• and where his most important stage works continue to be performed today ...

• Continue ... today ... "today" is redundant. Similar is found later:

• continue to be regularly performed today throughout the world

• Will review--Smerus (talk) 09:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC) I have reviewed and made excisions/alterations where appropriate--Smerus (talk) 12:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a similar overuse of the word "now" in the article; please review all of them. And "therefore", sample: was therefore the premiere of the complete cycle ... and therefore persuaded his family to allow him music lessons ... therefore adds nothing.

• Will review--Smerus (talk) 09:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC) I have reviewed and made excisions/alterations where appropriate. 5 appearances of 'now' (one being the title 'Apocalypse Now') are now, oops I mean presently, three. Two appearances of 'therefore', neither inappropriate, are not excessive or in any way deletereous to the quality of the article.--Smerus (talk) 12:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Hugely impressed"? A most unfortunate colloquialism. Kind of like "major" anything. Unless that is a direct quote from a source, please fix.

• This is WP:OR nit-picking. Who says this an unfortunate colloquialisim'? It is standard English. The source makes it clear that the terminology is justified. Choice of word issues, unless the words are misleading, are scarcely a priority in an FA review context.--Smerus (talk) 09:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you saying the source uses that colloquialism? If so, it should be quoted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• the Nazi hierarchy as a whole did not share Hitler's enthusiasm for Wagner's operas

• I think we you can do better than "as a whole".

  Can 'we'? So make a proposal if it worries you so much! - I scarcely have the temerity to do so myself before so formidable a critic. It is a standard English usage and I see nothing objectionable in it.--Smerus (talk) 09:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Gerda Arendt[edit]

I appreciate the effort!

See more resolved questions --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Wagner's middle stage output began with The Flying Dutchman (Der fliegende Holländer, 1843)" - this is wrong, was reverted to the wrong version twice. Wagner wrote in German and thought in German. There are several ways to repair it:

• "Wagner's middle stage output began with Der fliegende Holländer (The Flying Dutchman, 1843)"
• "Wagner's middle stage output began with Der fliegende Holländer (The Flying Dutchman, 1843)" (better when the page will be moved, not too likely now, perhaps in 2020)
• "Wagner's middle stage output began with Der fliegende Holländer (The Flying Dutchman, 1843)" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to compare FA Cosima Wagner, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Gerda. Wagner wrote and thought in German. We should link "Der fliegende Holländer" and keep (The Flying Dutchman, 1843)" as an unlinked parenthetical. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check[edit]

Image check - all OK (PD age, 1923 or own work), sources and authors provided. Some minor points and comments:

• Some images are not suitable for Commons yet, but properly flagged and kept on Wiki under US copyright - OK (no action required).
• File:Wagnerbruhl.jpg - OK, but could use image category on Commons (not relevant for FA, just as info).
• File:Siegfried_leitmotif.jpg - needs a source for the leitmotif's notation for possible verification.
• File:Hanslick.jpg - any chance to find author info? Or add "unknown" as author, if not possible (pd-70 looks OK from the given years, but author or lack of info should be clarified).
• Tweaked some licenses myself to more specific tags and other minor improvements (no action required). GermanJoe (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks -I have now dealt with all three issues you raise.--Smerus (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Updated status. A very nice article, good luck with the remaining FA. GermanJoe (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I weighed in at the peer review but was still dubious as to whether it was FAC ready. However, I've been monitoring the considerable work that's gone on during the course of the FAC, and it seems to meet the criteria.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I take no position on the question of what language the title should be in. I really don't think that issue detracts from what is a very fine article indeed.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks[edit]

Spot checks – the delegate has asked me to do some. I have reserved at the British Library: Deathridge's Wagner Beyond Good and Evil; Gregor-Dellin's Richard Wagner – in the UK edition, which I devoutly hope will follow the pagination of the American edition used by the WP authors; Millington's Wagner Compendium; and all four volumes of Newman. The 1990 American edition of Gutman's book is not held by the British Library, so I'll stick to the above-mentioned seven books, and hope to report back by Tuesday or Wednesday. Tim riley (talk) 10:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Many tks Tim. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Enjoy!--Smerus (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks

No trace of close paraphrase or unacknowledged quotation. Where I say, below, that I didn't find something I admit that it may in fact be there and I have looked straight through it; I am quite prepared to be corrected. The few quibbles I have are pretty minor in any case.

Millington (2001)

• 2 – fine
• 26 – fine
• 19 – fine
• 21a – fine
• 21b – Millington doesn't quite say what the article says: he says the work was based on Die Laune des Verliebten, but was itself untitled
• 21c – fine
• 23a and b – fine
• 25a – Millington mentions the failure of the production, but doesn't, on the cited page, mention Wagner's own financial difficulties
• 25b – fine
• 33 – fine
• 35 – fine
• 40 – fine
• 42 – fine
• 43 – fine
• 44 – no mention of Heller here, as far as I could see
• 46 – fine
• 49 – I couldn't find any mention here of the goings on with the Julies
• 55 – fine
• 58 – fine
• 59 – fine
• 68 – fine
• 81a – the source doesn't quite say what the article says: Millington dates the first draft to 1845, which is not exactly the same as saying the idea first came to him then
• 81b – fine
• 81c – I think the article goes slightly further than the quoted source: Millington just says "irreversibly affected … emancipation of harmony" – which is not the same as "laying the groundwork" for 20th century music. Nor does Millington say, as the article does, that "many" hold this view.
• 92 – fine
• 98 – fine
• 103 – fine
• 104 – fine
• 125 – fine
• 128 – fine
• 136 – fine
• 137 – fine
• 139 – fine
• 142 – fine
• 155 – fine
• 157 – fine
• 162 – fine
• 163 – fine
• 166 – Millington's words do not support the statement here that the Ring is the only work of such length to make it into the repertory (though of course I'm not suggesting there are others)
• 167 – fine
• 176 – fine
• 180 – fine
• 181 – fine
• 182 – fine
• 183 – fine
• 184 – fine
• 192 – fine
• 206 – fine
• 218 – sorry to be Beckmesserish, but the source cited doesn't actually mention Beckmesser in re Hanslick
• 231 – fine

Gregor-Dellin

Alas, the British edition in the British Library, though it seems to be the same text, has decidedly different page numberings from the American edition used for the WP article. I did a random check of a couple of references, using the index to track them down, and they were fine.

Deathridge

• 178 – fine
• 188 – fine
• 190 – fine
• 222 – fine

Newman 1

• 1 – fine
• 3 – fine
• 5 – fine
• 7 – fine
• 8 – fine
• 11 – fine
• 13 – fine
• 14 – fine
• 18 – No mention in Newman that Weinlig had the given name "Christian"
• 20 – fine
• 22 – fine
• 24 – fine
• 27 – fine
• 28 – fine
• 29 – fine
• 30 – fine
• 31 – fine
• 32 – fine
• 34 – fine
• 38 – fine
• 41 – fine

Newman 2

• 50 – fine
• 65 – fine
• 66 – fine
• 69 – fine
• 71 – fine
• 72 – fine

Newman 3

• 84 – fine
• 85 – fine
• 91 – fine
• 93 – fine
• 94 – fine
• 95 – fine
• 96 – fine
• 97 – fine

Newman 4

• 117 – fine
• 120 – fine
• 121 – fine
• 123 – fine
• 124 – fine
• 130 – fine
• 131 – fine
• 134 – fine
• 170 – fine

I spotted one or two drafting points (nothing grave) while I was doing this spot check, and will go through the article with such things in mind and report back below. – Tim riley (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – this is now a magnificent article, of which both the authors and Wikipedia itself can be proud. For those of us who work on articles about classical music and the lives and works of composers it is a reminder of the standards we need to maintain. It is all the more creditable because the name Wagner is synonymous with controversy – Quot homines, tot sententiae. Sincere congratulations! A few drafting points. Nothing to frighten the horses, and certainly nothing to affect my support:

• General
  • "–ize" or "–ise"? Except within quotations you should, I think, be consistent on one or the other form. At present you have "organised", "synthesised", "characterisations" but "realized", "characterized", "scandalized", "criticizes", "anglicization".
  • Date format – English or American? You have, e.g., 10 June 1865 but January 25, 1866 in the Return and resurgence (1862–71) section
  • German surnames – specifically that of Hans von Bülow: I have always understood it is not done to include the "von" when referring to a man by surname alone: thus one talks of "Otto von Bismarck" but "Bismarck" not "von Bismarck", or "Herbert von Karajan" but "Karajan", not "von Karajan" – and so "Bülow" not "von Bülow". Grove refers to "Bülow" tout court throughout.
• Early career
  • Is it useful to have a blue link for "choir"? A touch of WP:OVERLINK possibly.
• Dresden (1842–49)
  • "Wagner lived in Dresden … The Wagners' stay at Dresden" – deliberate variation of preposition? Nothing wrong with that, but I thought I'd ask
• In exile: Switzerland (1849–58)
  • "In 1850, Julie … which her husband prevented" – this is a helluva sentence, weighing in at 68 words. Perhaps chop it into three?
• Bayreuth (1871–76)
  • As with "choir" earlier, I'd be inclined to remove the blue link to "Theatre"
• Last years (1876–83)
  • "a number of" in successive sentences at end of first and start of second paras.
  • "having suffered through a series of increasingly severe angina attacks" – is the "through" what you want here? Looks a bit odd to my eye.
  • "The legend … is without credible evidence" – How disappointing to learn that he didn't die of a surfeit of Pringles (sorry – pass on rapidly)
• Influence on music
  • Not sure you need blue links for both "atonality" and "atonal"

That's it from me. Congratulations on fine work. Tim riley (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, very many thanks for this. I will go through all your comments. Checking re the references I can't really do till I'm back in London in mid-February. Best, --Smerus (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned the points I have raised in both my sets of comments above are of minor consequence at most, and for myself I'd be happy to see them addressed after the article is promoted (as I hope it will be). Tim riley (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have nowdealt appropriately with all the above, save for the citation queries.--Smerus (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments[edit]

A great deal of work by nominator and reviewers, thanks all. Given the time already invested in this review, I'm inclined to agree with Tim's last suggestion to leave minor referencing fixes till after promotion if the nominator can't get back to his sources for a couple of weeks (my own comments below re. additional citations may also fall into that category). Anyway, some things I noticed:

• Many duplicate links were revealed by Ucucha's checker; I removed a couple but would prefer the nominator to review the rest and remove as appropriate (some may be justified owing to the length of the article).
• I'd expect as a matter of course all paragraphs to end in citations, even if some of the facts are considered common knowledge or otherwise uncontroversial, i.e.
  • In exile: Switzerland (1849–58), fifth paragraph
  • Last years (1876–83), second para
  • Prose writings, first para -- I guess can be taken as an intro to the cited material to follow, so not a big deal
  • Controversies, first para -- ditto
  • Opponents and supporters, last section of final sentence (perhaps this simply requires moving the mid-sentence citation to the end)
• Just throwing in my 2 cents worth as far as content goes, there is a stronger Hitler quote than I think you have currently under Nazi appropriation, from Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, i.e. "Whoever wants to understand National Socialist Germany must know Wagner" -- FWIW.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, thanks for this. I will try to go over as many of these points as I can (with Tim's) over the next few days. I love the Shirer quotation, which I know well - but there's a problem - I have never been able to track it down to precisely something that Hitler is documented as saying, although I have made much effort to do so. It's such a dandy that he ought to have said it - but I'm rather afraid we can't just take Shirer's word on this. If anyone can provide a stone-bonk certainty source, I will of course be delighted! (I mention by way of caution the story which 'everyone knows', and wich is constantly cited in Hitler biographies, that Hitler started on his political career after being inspired by a performance of Wagner's 'Rienzi'- a story which has recently been revealed as a complete fantasy). --Smerus (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have now dealt with these issues, although a couple of ends of non-prefatory paras could perhaps still be improved with citations - I will deal with these when I deal with Tom Riley's citation queries.--Smerus (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think the dup links need further review. As I've indicated, in a longish article some may be justified but Tannhäuser (just a random example) is linked three times in the main body, which is surely excessive. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will certainly recheck the dup links. --Smerus (talk) 04:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now removed duplicate links, except for once each again for operas and other musical works in the 'Works' section - I think this may be justified in a lengthy article - also some readers may want to skip the 'Life' section and just see about the works.--Smerus (talk) 05:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by GabeMc[edit]

General

• Possible copyvio, non-free use image. - File:Photo of Gustav Mahler by Moritz Nähr 01.jpg appears to be PD in the US only and not in its country of origin. Also, the file is tagged as not appropriate for Wikicommons and it lacks a Wagner FUR.
• Per Wikipedia:Writing better articles: "One-sentence paragraphs are unusually emphatic, and should be used sparingly." I count at least seven instances of one-sentence paragraphs. I think a few could easily be avoided. I will review
• Per WP:MOSIM: "Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other, and between an image and an infobox or similar." Text is currently being sandwiched by images in the sections: "Return and resurgence (1862–71)", "Music dramas" (1851–82) and "Tristan und Isolde and Die Meistersinger". I will review
• Nietzsche-Wagner relationship. - Perhaps I am missing it in the article, but I don't see anything about Wagner-Nietzsche.
  • Try the Bayreuth and, particularly, the Influence on literature, philosophy and the visual arts sections, Gabe. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • In Bayreuth: "Friedrich Nietzsche, who, having published his eulogistic essay "Richard Wagner in Bayreuth" before the festival as part of his Untimely Meditations, was bitterly disappointed by what he saw as Wagner's pandering to increasingly exclusivist German nationalism; his breach with Wagner began at this time.[116]"
    • In Influence on literature, philosophy and the visual arts: "Nietzsche broke with Wagner following the first Bayreuth Festival, believing that Wagner's final phase represented a pandering to Christian pieties and a surrender to the new German Reich."
      • These two points are at least somewhat redundant, not? Also, I meant the Nietzsche-Wagner relationship, not just that they knew each other. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Inconsistencies (from "Romantic operas (1843–51)"). - "Wagner's middle stage output began with The Flying Dutchman (Der fliegende Holländer, 1843), which is closely followed in the article text by: "The first two components of the Ring cycle were Das Rheingold (The Rhinegold), which was completed in 1854, and Die Walküre (The Valkyrie)". Why is The Flying Dutchman rendered in English and parenthetically translated to German when the rest of the article does the opposite? As with this passage, which appears twice in the paragraph: "Dutchman and Tannhäuser". So why the mix of English and German titles and why not "Holländer and Tannhäuser"?

Glaring omissions

• Nearly everywhere in the article where a German term is used it is followed by a parenthetical English translation, but this is not the case for "Wahnfried" ("Peace from Illusion"), in "Bayreuth (1871–76)".
• From the Wikipedia article: "Wagner also began to dictate his autobiography, Mein Leben, at the King's request.[87]" It should be noted that he dictated the bio to Cosima.
• From the Wikipedia article: "Wagner sought to have Tristan und Isolde produced in Vienna.[82] Despite numerous rehearsals, the opera remained unperformed, and gained a reputation as being "impossible" to sing, which added to Wagner's financial woes.[83]" From Britannica online: "He remained in Vienna for about a year, then travelled widely as a conductor and awaited a projected production of Tristan. When this work was not produced because the artists were bewildered by its revolutionary stylistic innovations". I think the Wikipedia version of this datum needs improvement. 1) "impossible" to sing, and 2) "Wagner's financial woes", in particular.
• The article quotes Wagner: "I shall never write an Opera more. As I have no wish to invent an arbitrary title for my works, I will call them Dramas", but it does not explicate the fact that he: "prophesied the disappearance of opera as artificial entertainment for an elite and the emergence of a new kind of musical stage work for the people". (Britannica online)
• "In 1861 an amnesty allowed him to return to Germany; from there he went to Vienna, where he heard Lohengrin for the first time." Ibid. The article does not mention that he went to Vienna (for a year), where he heard Lohengrin for the first time.
• Wagner was at least once imprisoned for debt (1840), but the article does not mention this.
• The article establishes quite well that Wagner had ongoing financial difficulties, but it does not attempt to explain why he had problems with creditors. What did he spend his money on and why was he always in debt? I assume he lived beyond his means, but this is not explicated in the article.
• According to the Encyclopedia Britannica: "several elder sisters became opera singers or actresses" and this proved "a main formative influence" on Wagner, yet our Wikipedia article does not mention his sisters or their influence on his interest in opera, which is currently credited entirely to Geyer.

See note 1. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note 1 says something vague about "careers connected with the stage", but nothing about Wagner's sisters singing or acting or their influence on him in that regard. That is the glaring omission. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Factual error? - Britannica says Wagner "taught himself the piano", the Wikipedia article says he "received a little piano instruction from his Latin teacher" and "persuaded his family to allow him music lessons".
• Britannica says "On leaving the university that year, he spent the summer as operatic coach at Würzburg, where he composed his first opera, Die Feen (The Fairies), based on a fantastic tale by Carlo Gozzi." The article currently does not mention his work as an operatic coach or that The Fairies was based on a story by Carlo Gozzi. Which would seem an especially important point, that Wagner did not compose "his first complete opera" without inspiration from Gozzi. E.g., the article mentions that The Flying Dutchman was based on a sketch by Heinrich Heine.
• Fact check. - Are "musical director" and "conductor" synonymous? Britannica says he was a conductor at Magdeburg, but perhaps the two terms are interchangeable.
• While in Paris, Wagner was for a time "living with a colony of poor German artists".Ibid. The Wikipedia article does not mention this.
• "In 1831, Wagner enrolled at the University of Leipzig, where he became a member of the Saxon student fraternity.[17]" Ignores the fact that he did so "as an adjunct with inferior privileges, since he had not completed his preparatory schooling." Ibid.
• "Rienzi was staged to considerable acclaim on 20 October.[39]" should be followed by a paraphrase of: "The next year The Flying Dutchman ... was less successful, since the audience expected a work in the French-Italian tradition similar to Rienzi and was puzzled by the innovative way the new opera integrated the music with the dramatic content." Ibid. This second point (from Britannica) speaks both to the general lack of critical commentary in regard to Wagner's musical innovations and to a general sense that most of the less flattering datums have been intentionally avoided.
• Missing notable datum. - "The refusal of the court opera authorities in Dresden to stage his next opera, Lohengrin, was not based on artistic reasons; rather, they were alienated by Wagner’s projected administrative and artistic reforms. His proposals would have taken control of the opera away from the court and created a national theatre whose productions would be chosen by a union of dramatists and composers." (Britannica online) This point illustrates well the resistance Wagner dealt with in regard to his musical innovations.
• Influence of Liszt's innovative tone poems c. 1857. "By 1857 his style had been enriched by the stimulus of Liszt’s tone poems and their new harmonic subtleties". (Britannica online)
• No mention of his "long-cherished plan to win renown in Paris".

• Lack of critical commentary. - "The musically cultured public of the earlier nineteenth century had a comfortable, established conception of what music was – and to them it was not what Wagner composed." —Ronald Taylor. Works of critical commentary regarding Wagner's music certainly do exist, the are just not currently represented in the article, which would seem to fail both 1b and 1d of the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria based on this glaring omision. From the Encyclopedia Britannica: "Tannhäuser was coolly received but soon proved a steady attraction; after this, each new work achieved public popularity despite persistent hostility from many critics."
  • Re: Parsifal: "He has been much criticized for this strongly personal treatment of a religious subject, which mingles the concepts of sacred and profane love". I see no mention of any criticism of Parsifal, as though the work was universally accepted with favour.

Factual errors

• "The political ban that had been placed on Wagner in Germany after he had fled Dresden was fully lifted in 1862. The composer settled in Biebrich in Prussia.[77]" This is misleading/confusing, as his ban from Germany was (at least partially) lifted in 1861, the same year he returned there. As the article currently reads it sounds as if he did not return to Germany until 1862. Also, the article later goes on to say: "Throughout this period (1861–64) Wagner sought to have Tristan und Isolde produced in Vienna." Which seems a bit awkward in a section titled: "Return and resurgence (1862–71)", which implies his "return" to Germany was in 1862.

Sourcing issues

• Three or four of the "notes" do not provide any sourcing whatsoever.
• Inconsistencies. - In "Other sources", some of the works use isbn-13 while many others use isbn-10. According to Wikipedia:ISBN: "Please use the 13-digit one if available", as they almost always are.
• Inconsistencies. - cite #134: "^ The WWV is available online in German (accessed 30 October 2012)", cite #143: "^ Wagnerjahr 2013 website, accessed 14 November 2012". Sometimes accessdates are enclosed in parentheses and other times they are not.
• Inconsistencies. - Cite #111: "^ Cited in Spotts (1994) 54", cite #112: "^ Spotts (1994) 11".
• Inconsistencies. - Cite #63: "^ See Magee (2000) 251–3.", cite #212: "^ Magee (1988) 47". Some cite include "see", most do not. The citiations should be internally consistent.
• Cite #167: "^ Cosima Wagner (1978) II, 647. Entry of 28 March 1881." Do you mean dated 28 March? Or is this yet another EngVar issue?
• Cite #169: "^ Newman (1976) IV, 578. Letter from Wagner to the King of 19 September 1881." Who was the King of 19 September 1881? Perhaps you mean: "^ Newman (1976) IV, 578. Letter from Wagner to King Ludwig, dated 19 September 1881", or similar.
• Citing Wikipedia. - Cite #214: "^ Millington (2001) 26. See also New German School and War of the Romantics". Avoid citing other Wikipedia pages since they are not considered WP:RSs.
• Inconsistencies. Cite #47: "Also see Millington (1992) 282, 285." Cite #245: "See also Field (1981)." Is it "see also" or "also see"? Or is there an EngVar issue that allows editors to use either interchangeably?
• Missing accessdate. - Cite #249: "^ Fackler (2007). See also the Music and the Holocaust website."

Lead

• Clarity. - The lead currently states: "his Tristan und Isolde is sometimes described as marking the start of modern music", yet in the article body the point is stated slightly differently as: "Some music historians date the beginning of modern classical music to the first notes of Tristan". "Modern music" and "modern classical music" imply quite different connotations.
• Parenthetical "scare quote". - "(or, as Wagner himself called some of his later works, 'music dramas')". Per WP:LEADCITE: "direct quotations ... must be provided with an inline citation every time it is mentioned". I will review
• Excess detail. - "leitmotifs—musical phrases associated with individual characters, places, ideas or plot elements." Is the lead really the most appropriate place to explain to the reader what leitmotifs are? The term is already linked. Yes, as this is an impotant element of Wagner's style and influence
• Awkward. - "His advances in musical language," I don't think he added anything to the language of music per se. I think what you are trying to say that his use of "extreme chromaticism and quickly shifting tonal centres" was musically innovative, but surely these were not musical expressions invented by Wagner, as the prose currently implies. I am indeed saying that Wganer introduced these feaures as central elements in his style.
• Modifier choice. - "greatly influenced the development of classical music". I would swap-out "greatly" for "significantly". Your taste vs. mine
• Prose. - "Unlike most opera composers, Wagner wrote both the libretto and the music for each of his stage works." Is "Unlike most opera composers" necessary? It seems too vague for the lead. Yes important, and I don't see what's vague - it's true.
• Awkward. - "as a composer of works broadly in the romantic vein" The use of "broadly" seems awkward to me and I think it could be removed. I will review
• Confusing prose. - "Wagner transformed operatic thought through his concept of the Gesamtkunstwerk ("total work of art")." What does "transformed operatic thought" mean? Was opera pre-Wagner an "incomplete work of art"? I will review; but there is an element of deliberate miscomprehension in your second comment
  • Please see WP:AGF. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Prose. - "It sought to synthesise the poetic, visual, musical and dramatic arts". "It" here is referring back to "his concept of the Gesamtkunstwerk", but how can a concept seek to take direct action? I think you mean to say that he "sought to synthesise ...". I will review
• Confusing. - "with music subsidiary to drama". There are no spoken words in an opera, so how could the music be "subsidiary to drama" when the drama originates from the music? See comment by Toccata quarte below
• Prose. - "Wagner realized these ideas most fully in the first half of the four-opera cycle Der Ring des Nibelungen" "Most fully" is awkward and were these ideas not realised in the second half of the work? I disagree about awkwardness and your interpretation is correct - see in artcle.
• Excess detail. - "which contained many novel design features" This seems like excess detail for the lead. Did Wagner design the building himself? not excess; he was colsely inolved in designing.
• Prose. - "received their premieres", try "premiered". Your taste vs. mine

No that is WP:ENGVAR Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But later in the article the prose is worded as I suggested above. How can an inanimate object (an opera) receive a premiere?GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See [2]. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Prose. - "an annual festival run by his descendants", try: "an annual festival organized by his descendants". Your taste vs. mine
• Prose. - "His thoughts on the relative importance of music and drama", do you mean to say "His thoughts on the relative balance (or emphasis) of music and drama"? I will review
• Prose. - "were to change again" try "changed again". Your taste vs. mine
• Vague modifiers. - "he reintroduced some traditional forms into his last few stage works", try: "he reintroduced traditional forms into his final stage works" No, he only reintroduced some.
• Redundant prose. - "Until his last years" follows too closely behind "his last few stage works", which would be fixed by my suggestion directly above. I will review
• Unencyclopedic prose. - "turbulent love affairs" seems less then encyclopedic to me. Your taste vs. mine
• Prose. - "repeated flight from his creditors", could Wagner fly? I think you mean to say that he "repeatedly fleed from his creditors", or similar. Don't be silly

"fleed" ????!!!! Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I made a typo and obviously meant "fled". But wow, I've never seen a reviewer get double-teamed by a delegate and a contributor. Way to encourage FAC reviews guys! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should read more reviews. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if this is how they tend to go, then I will read fewer (not more) and contribute to them even less. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Prose. - "The effect of his ideas can be traced in many of the arts throughout the 20th century" "traced"? How about: "The effect of his innovations can be identified in art throughout the 20th century". Your taste vs. mine
• Prose. - "especially where they have antisemitic content" try: "especially where they contain antisemitic sentiments", or similar. Your taste vs. mine
  • I disagree and I think you have used the "Your taste vs. mine" non-resolution excessively. Writing cannot have antisemitic content, works may contain or include antisemitic content, or Wagner may have at times espoused antisemitism, but his writings do not have antisemitic content, some of them contain or include such sentiments. To clarify further: "have" is a possessive verb, but an inanimate object (e.g. a book, poem or libretto) cannot possess anything. So using "have" in this context improperly personifies Wagner's writings and is poor quality English at best; and its in the lead no less. This example is representative of the awkward prose found throughout the article that the nom refuses to improve. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Early years

• Repetition. - "Richard was sent to the Kreuzschule, the boarding school of the Dresdner Kreuzchor, at the expense of Geyer's brother.[8] "
• Abbreviations. - "Richard Wagner was born in Leipzig, at No. 3", shouldn't this be "Richard Wagner was born in Leipzig, at number 3"? Why?
  • So as to avoid the unnecessary mid-sentence terminal punctuation point following "No.". I've been told this numerous times over the years at FAC; we don't write "No. 3" when "number 3" or "number three" will convey the same information. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Excess parenthetical? - "the Brühl (The House of the Red and White Lions)," I assume The House of the Red and White Lions moniker is exlicated at the topical article Brühl (Leipzig).
• Confusing/awkward prose. - "Wagner's father died of typhus six months after Richard's birth, after which Wagner's mother began living with the actor and playwright Ludwig Geyer, a friend of Richard's father.[3]" I think we could use given names here for clarity such as: "Carl died of typhus six months after Richard's birth, after which Johanna began living with a friend of Carl's, the actor and playwright Ludwig Geyer.[3]" I will review
• Prose. - "although no documentation of this is found in the Leipzig church registers.[4]" Try: "although no documentation of this has been found in the Leipzig church registers.[4]" I will review
• Overuse of the passive voice. - "Until he was fourteen, Wagner was known as Wilhelm Richard Geyer." Try: "Until age fourteen, Wagner was known as Wilhelm Richard Geyer." Your taste vs. mine

Again, ENGVAR - "age fourteen" is incorrect in British English. Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps "aged fourteen", but why would editors of an article about a German subject be required to use British English over American English anyway? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ENGVAR; once one form is picked it should be used consistently. Johnbod (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Picked by whom? Sounds like WP:OWN to me. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Prose. "He almost certainly^[vague] thought that Geyer was his natural father.[5]" Swap "natural" with "biological" for clarity. I will review
• Wordy. - "Geyer's love of the theatre came to be shared by his stepson, and Wagner took part in his performances." Try: "Geyer's love of the theatre came to be shared by Wagner, who took part in his performances." Your taste vs. mine
• Excess detail. - "In his autobiography, Wagner recalled once playing the part of an angel.[6]" This detail seems better as a note. Your taste vs. mine
• Excess detail. - "at Possendorf, near Dresden", is "near Dresden" needed here? It seems like an excess geographical datum.No WP entry for Possendorf, so better thus.
• Prose. - "where he received some piano instruction from his Latin teacher." Omit "some" as excess. Also, is this the very first musical instruction Wagner received? If so, perhaps that point should be briefly explicated here. I will review

"piano lessons" ? Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Awkward, excess prose. - "He could not manage a proper scale at the keyboard, and preferred playing theatre overtures by ear", try: "He struggled to play a proper scale at the keyboard, and preferred playing by ear". I will review
• Verbose. - "Following Geyer's death in 1821, when Richard was eight, he was sent to the Kreuzschule, the boarding school of the Dresdner Kreuzchor, at the expense of Geyer's brother.[8]" Try: "Following Geyer's death in 1821, Richard was sent to the Kreuzschule, the boarding school of the Dresdner Kreuzchor, at the expense of Geyer's brother.[8]" I will review
• Prose. - "At the age of nine he was hugely impressed by the Gothic elements of Weber's opera Der Freischütz, which he saw conducted by the composer.[9]" 1) "hugely impressed" is not encyclopedic, 2) "which he saw conducted by the composer" is awkward. Try: "which Wagner saw Weber conduct", 3) I think we need to use Weber's full name on his first mention in the article. I will review

The name maybe, the rest is fine. Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Confusing prose. - "At this stage Wagner entertained ambitions as a playwright." Its confusing to use the term "stage" as in "period" in a sentence about the theatre. I will review
• Verbose. - "His first creative effort (which, in the standard listing of Wagner's works, the Wagner-Werke-Verzeichnis, stands as WWV 1) was a tragedy called Leubald, begun at school in 1826, which was strongly influenced by Shakespeare and Goethe." Try: "His first creative effort, listed in the Wagner-Werke-Verzeichnis as WWV 1, was a tragedy called Leubald. Begun at school in 1826, is was strongly influenced by Shakespeare and Goethe."
• Passive voice. - "Wagner was determined to set it to music, and therefore persuaded his family to allow him music lessons.[10][n 2]", try: "Wagner, determined to set it to music, persuaded his family to allow him music lessons.[10[n 2]" Your taste vs. mine
• Comma use. - I count three commas in an 11-word sentence. "By 1827, the family had returned, now with Geyer, to Leipzig." Try: "By 1827 the family had returned with Geyer, to Leipzig." Actually this is a complete error -Geyer died in 1821 - I will correct..
• Prose. - "Wagner's first lessons in harmony were taken in 1828–31 with Christian Gottlieb Müller.[11]" I think "taken in 1828–31" should read "taken during 1828–31", as I'm not sure you can do something in a three year span and it avoids the redundancy of "in" twice within five words. I will review
• Prose, punctuation. - "In January 1828 he first heard Beethoven's 7th Symphony and then, in March, the same composer's 9th Symphony (both in the Gewandhaus)." Try: "In January 1828, he first heard Beethoven's 7th Symphony and in March, the same composer's 9th Symphony (both in the Gewandhaus)." Also, is the parenthetical needed here? Your taste vs. mine
• Prose. - "Beethoven became his inspiration, and Wagner wrote a piano transcription of the 9th Symphony.[12]" Wagner was inpsired by more than just Beethoven. Try: "Inspired by Beethoven, Wagner wrote a piano transcription of the 9th Symphony.[12]" I will review
• Prose. - "He was also greatly impressed by a performance of Mozart's Requiem.[13]" "Greatly impressed" strikes me as unencyclopedic. Your taste vs. mine
• Prose. - "In 1829 he saw the dramatic soprano Wilhelmine Schröder-Devrient on stage". 1) use commas after introductory phrases, 2) re: "dramatic soprano", I think dramatic is an excess modifier, 3) Try: "In 1829, he saw soprano Wilhelmine Schröder-Devrient perform on stage". Leaving it as "he saw the dramatic soprano Wilhelmine Schröder-Devrient on stage" is a bit confusing, was she performing? I will review. Dramatic soprano is an operatic term, I will link
• Awkward prose. - "and she became his ideal of the fusion of drama and music in opera" Try: "her fusion of drama and music in opera inpired him." Your taste vs. mine
• Linking. - "In his autobiography (liked), Wagner wrote", but above in the same section: "In his autobiography(no link), Wagner recalled". Link on first mention in lead and then the first mention in the article body.I will review
• Prose. - Though I realise that an "almost demonic fire" preceeds the text string, "kindled in him" seems unencyclopedic.Your taste vs. mine
• Prose, passive voice. - "Weinlig was so impressed with Wagner's musical ability that he refused any payment for his lessons." "so impressed" is also unencyclopedic IMO. Try: "Impressed with Wagner's musical ability, Weinlig refused any payment for his lessons." Your taste vs. mine
• Overuse of the passive voice, clarity. - "(which was consequently dedicated to him)", try: "(consequently dedicated to Weinlig)".Your taste vs. mine
• Lacking some detail, prose. - "In late 1820, Wagner was enrolled at Pastor Wetzel's school at Possendorf, near Dresden, where he received a little piano instruction from his Latin teacher.[7] He struggled to play a proper scale at the keyboard, and preferred playing theatre overtures by ear." 1) "a little piano instruction" needs a recast as it sounds like he learned on a miniature piano. Try: "where he received basic piano instruction from his Latin teacher.[7]" 2) The second sentence does not explicate that his teachers felt that he did not show aptitude in music and, in fact, his teacher said he would "torture the piano in a most abominable fashion."
• Prose. - "hugely impressed" and "greatly impressed" appear in two consecutive paragraphs. Both are colloquialisms that should be avoided in academic writing.

Early career (1833–42)

• Repetition. - "arrived in Paris in" Consider: "arrived in Paris during".
• Linking. - "which imitated the style of Carl Maria von Weber" Weber's full name is linked here, but her last name is linked four paragraphs previous.
• Wordy. - "Wagner's brother Albert managed to obtain for him", try: "Wagner's brother Albert secured for him", or similar.
• Prose. - "Wagner held a brief appointment as musical director", try: "Wagner briefly served as musical director", or similar.
• Unencyclopedic parenthetical. - "(not for the last time)". If the article properly establishes Wagner's pattern of debt (see the next paragraph in the article), then this foreshadow seems excessive and unencyclopedic.
• Unencyclopedia prose. "with serious money problems", try: "with severe financial problems"
• Excess detail, prose. - "Wagner had fallen for one of the leading ladies at Magdeburg, the actress Christine Wilhelmine "Minna" Planer.[26]" 1) Is it especially notable that she was a leading lady? 2) Leading lady is not encyclopedic, it sounds quite Hollywood-esque to me. In opera, a leading lady is called a prima donna, Italian for first lady.
• Inconsistent punctuation. I noticed an apparent inconsistency with the article's use of comma, sometimes afte rintroductory phrase sometimes not. E.g. "In 1831, Wagner enrolled at the University of Leipzig" then two parapgraphs later: "In May 1837 Minna left Wagner for another man" and then the next paragraph: "In June 1837, Wagner moved to Riga"
• Unencyclopedic prose. - "this was but the first débâcle of a troubled marriage".
• Confusing and awkward prose. - "having in this capacity engaged Minna's sister Amalie (also a singer) for the theatre, he presently resumed relations with Minna during 1838.[31]"
• Prose. - "they fled Riga to escape from creditors", were the creditors hunting them down as law enforecement would, or did they just skip out on the bill? Sounds like they were being pursued, not sure that's what you mean.
• Prose. - "During their flight, they took a stormy sea passage to London" Are they on a plane or a ship? I'm kidding of course, but I would like to see a word other then "flight" used here so as to avoid the jarring connotation.
• Prose. - "In June 1837, Wagner moved to Riga (then in the Russian Empire)," I think "(then part of the Russian Empire)" would be better English prose.
• Missing detail about Wagner's imprisonment for debt. - The article says he fled from creditors but does not mention that he was actually imprisoned in 1840.

Dresden (1842–49)

• Chronological breaks. - Why does a section titled 1842–49 begin with information dealing with the earlier period? E.g. "Wagner completed Rienzi in 1840." Which is also redundant with the previous sentence: "He also completed during this stay his third and fourth operas Rienzi and Der fliegende Holländer.[36]" I suggest that the Rienzi material be merged into the previous section for flow.
• Unencyclopedic. - "Wagner also mixed with artistic circles in Dresden", "mixed" sounds like slangy journalese here as does "artistic circles".

"moved in" possibly. Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's still slang John. Consider: "Wagner socialised with artists while in Dresden", or is this yet another EngVar issue? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's just being pompous. Nothing slangy about "moved in". Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You find the word "socialised" pompous? So you think: "Wagner also moved in artistic circles in Dresden" is better prose than: "Wagner socialised with artists while in Dresden"? How can one "move in an artistic circle", sounds to me like Wagner is dancing? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Awkward prose. - "The Wagners' stay at Dresden was brought to an end by Richard's involvement in leftist politics." Try: "Richard's involvement in leftist politics hastened the end of the Wagners' stay at Dresden."
• Colloquialism. - "Widespread discontent in Dresden came to a head in 1849". "Came to a head" is unencyclopedic.
• Colloquialism. - "when the unsuccessful May Uprising broke out" Instead of "broke out" try "began".
• Prose. - "Warrants were issued for the arrest of the revolutionaries; Wagner had to flee, first visiting Paris and then settling in Zurich". Try: "After warrants were issued for the arrest of the revolutionaries, Wagner fled first to Paris before settling in Zurich."
• Notable detail missing. - The article should mention that in 1844 Wagner was awarded the Prussian order of the Red Eagle.

In exile Switzerland (1849–58)

• Excessive use of the passive voice. - "Wagner was to spend the next twelve years in exile from Germany." Try: "Wagner spent the next twelve years in exile from Germany."
• Prose. - "Nevertheless, Wagner found himself in grim personal straits", 1) "Nevertheless" is unencyclopedic excess, same with: "grim personal straits".
• Prose. - "isolated from the German musical world", consider: "isolated from the German musical establishment".
• Prose. - "but this plan was aborted", swap "aborted" with "abandoned".
• Possible typo? - "when Wagner began an affair with Mme. Laussot."
• Unrelated parenthetical. "Meanwhile, Wagner's wife Minna, who had disliked the operas he had written after Rienzi, was falling into a deepening depression." Did her dislike of Wagner's post Rienzi contribute to her depression? I don't see how these two datums are related.
• Prose. - "Wagner himself fell victim to ill-health", try: "Wagner also fell victim to ill-health".
• Awkward prose. Missing word? - "Wagner himself fell victim to ill-health, according to Ernest Newman "largely a matter of overwrought nerves", which made it difficult for him to continue writing." It seems to me that this text string is missing a clause along the lines of "caused by" or "exacerbated by" or similar.
• Confusing modifier. - "Wagner's primary published output during his first years in Zurich was a set of essays." Was there a sub-primary published output? Is there a need to identify the set of essays as his primary published work during this period. Did he publish other works during this period that are not detailed in the article?
• Prose. - "in which the various arts such as music, song, dance, poetry, visual arts and stagecraft were unified." "Such as" implies that this is nto a complete list, though I get the felling that it is complete. Consider: "in which he would unify music, song, dance, poetry, visual arts and stagecraft." or similar.
• Prose. - "frequently using traditional antisemitic abuse". Recast as confusing/awkward prose. How could Wagner use traditional antisemitic abuse in writing? I think you mean that he "exploited traditional antisemitic stereotypes", or similar.
• Construction. - "the first of Wagner's writings to feature antisemitic views.[52] In this polemic Wagner argued" I suggest that the chronology not be broken up with asides about antisemitism, which already has a sub-section. "'Judaism in Music' (1850)[51] was the first of Wagner's writings to feature antisemitic views.[52]" This thought should end there, and the following excess detail be moved to the anti-semitism section.
• Redundant/awkward construction. - "In "Opera and Drama" (1851), Wagner described the aesthetics of drama that he was using to create the Ring operas. Before leaving Dresden, Wagner had drafted a scenario that eventually became the four-opera cycle Der Ring des Nibelungen." Seems like these two sentences either need to be swapped or merged into one, as the first mentions the Ring operas and the second "the four-opera cycle Der Ring des Nibelungen."
• Prose. - "revising the other libretti to agree with his new concept" "to agree with" is awkward. Consider: "for continuity with" or similar.
• Redundant, jarring prose. - "The concept of opera expressed in "Opera and Drama" and in other essays effectively renounced the operas he had previously written, up to and including Lohengrin." "Opera/s" is used three times within 17 words.
• Ellipses. - "Prelude (Vorspiel). ... At"
• Prose. - "following it immediately with Die Walküre" consider: "followed immediately by Die Walküre".
• Excess. - "One source of inspiration for Tristan und Isolde was the philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer, notably the latter's The World as Will and Idea. Why "the latter's", I'm not seeing any former.
• Contradiction. - "Wagner later called this the most important event of his life.[59]" However, in "Early years" Wagner is quoted as saying: ""When I look back across my entire life I find no event to place beside this in the impression it produced on me". Did he have two "most important moments"?
• Editorialising. - "His personal circumstances certainly made him an easy convert to what he understood to be Schopenhauer's philosophy". Particularly: "certainly made him an easy convert".
• Prose. - "He remained an adherent of Schopenhauer for the rest of his life". An "adherent of Schopenhauer", or an "adherent of Schopenhauer's philosophy"?
• Prose. - "One of Schopenhauer's doctrines was that music held a supreme role in the arts as a direct expression of the world's essence, namely, blind, impulsive will.[61]" 1) "One of Schopenhauer's doctrines was that" is awkward prose, consider: "One of Schopenhauer's doctrines asserted", or similar. 2) What does: "a direct expression of the world's essence" mean? Do you mean to relate the doctrine to human behaviour, or to "the world"? How can planet Earth be said to have an essence?
• Personification, unencyclopedic prose. - "Aspects of Schopenhauerian doctrine found their way into Wagner's subsequent libretti.[n 6]" Consider: "Aspects of Schopenhauerian doctrine influenced Wagner's subsequent libretti.[n 6]"
• Clarity. - "A second source of inspiration was". Do you mean to say "A second source of inspiration for Tristan und Isolde was ..."?
• Prose. - "the wife of the silk merchant Otto Wesendonck", is this datum notable to Wagner? If not, consider trimming it out as excess detail not directly related to Wagner.
• Inconsistent punctuation. - "From May 1853 onwards Wesendonck made ..." In most places the article uses commas after introductory phrases, why not here?
• Jarring prose. - "Wesendonck made several loans to Wagner to finance his household expenses in Zurich". "loans to Wagner to finance" is jarring, Consider: "Wesendonck made several loans to Wagner, who struggled financially with his household expenses in Zurich".
• Jargon? - "setting poems by Mathilde". Will the casual reader understand what this means?
• Prose, verbosity. - "The Queen enjoyed his Tannhäuser overture and spoke with Wagner after the concert, writing of him in her diary that he '[is] short, very quiet, wears spectacles & has a very finely-developed forehead, a hooked nose & projecting chin.'[69]" Consider: "The Queen enjoyed his Tannhäuser overture and spoke with him after the concert, later describing Wagner in her diary as 'short, very quiet, [he] wears spectacles & has a very finely-developed forehead, a hooked nose & projecting chin.'[69]" Also, per MOS:AMP, those ampersands should be rendered as "and".
• Prose. - "he gave several concerts in 1855" Do conductors give concerts? They aren't even playing an instrument. Bad grammar or yet another EngVar?

See [3], for instance. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concede the point. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In exile Venice and Paris (1858–62)

• Unencyclopedic prose. - "Wagner's uneasy affair with Mathilde collapsed in 1858". 1) "uneasy affair" is a bit nebulous. What was uneasy about it? 2) The use of "collapsed" here is awkward. Consider: "ended" or "came to an end" (if you prefer verbosity). Disagree.
• Prose. - "Wagner's attitude to Minna had changed". "attitude to Minna" is not brilliant prose. Consider: "Wagner's estimation of Minna's character had changed" or similar. Disagree.
• Spacing. - "Wagner once again moved to Paris to oversee production of a new revision of Tannhäuser ," Agree.
• Unencyclopedic colloquialism. - "staged thanks to the efforts of Princess Pauline von Metternich," "thanks to the efforts" is not an encyclopedic way of stating that she helped Wagner in this regard. Disagree.
• WP:EGG. - "The performances of the Paris Tannhäuser in 1861 were a notable fiasco". This should come four words previous, at Tannhäuser. No - because it refers to a specfic subsection of the article, as you will see if you click.
• Wordy sentence. - "The performances of the Paris Tannhäuser in 1861 were a notable fiasco, brought about not only by the conservative tastes of the Jockey Club which organised demonstrations in the theatre to protest at the presentation of the ballet feature in act 1 (instead of its traditional location in the second act), but also by those who wanted to use the occasion as a veiled political protest against the pro-Austrian policies of Napoleon III.[74]" Recast as two sentences. Agree.
• Repetition. - "Wagner left Paris soon after.[75] Wagner sought a reconciliation". Use a pronoun at the second use within 6 words. Agree.
• Awkward prose/confusing chronology prose. - "Wagner left Paris soon after.[75] Wagner sought a reconciliation with Minna during this Paris visit" Recast so "during this Paris visit" does not follow "Wagner left Paris soon after". Amended.
• Rework. - "The work was withdrawn after the third performance and Wagner left Paris soon after.[75] Wagner sought a reconciliation with Minna during this Paris visit, and although she joined him there, the reunion was not successful and they again parted from each other when Wagner left.[76]" The reasoning should be clear, as with above, these clauses are not in a proper chronological order and are redundant. 'Not redundant. Last two sentences are on a different topic.
• Redundant. - "the reunion was not successful and they again parted from each other when Wagner left."

Return and resurgence (1862–71)

• Prose. - "but Bülow refused to concede this". Trim out "to concede this" as wordy excess.
• "The young king, an ardent admirer of Wagner's operas, had the composer brought to Munich.[84] He settled Wagner's considerable debts,[85] and proposed to stage Tristan, Die Meistersinger, the Ring, and the other operas Wagner planned.[86]" This ignores the notable datum: "In 1864 Louis II, a youth of 18, ascended the throne of Bavaria; he was a fanatical admirer of Wagner’s art and, having read the poem of The Ring (published the year before with a plea for financial support), invited Wagner to complete the work in Munich." (Britannica online)
• Clarity. - "The political ban that had been placed on Wagner in Germany after he had fled Dresden was fully lifted in 1862." Does "the political ban" refer to the arrest warrant? The section on Dresden does not mention any "political ban". Disagree.
• Clarify. - "The composer settled in Biebrich in Prussia.[77]"^[when?] Disagree.
• Awkward prose. - "Wagner continued to give financial support to her living in Dresden" He gave financial support to "her living"? Recast as: "Wagner continued to financially support her while she lived in Dresden", or similar. agree.
• Prose. - "In Biebrich, Wagner at last began work on Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg, his only mature comedy." Recast "at last" as flowery unencyclopedic prose. Also, what's a "mature comedy"? A comedy for adults? Do you mean to say that Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg is Wagner's most sophisticated comedy? Disagree.
• Prose. - "Wagner tried to have Tristan und Isolde produced" Recast to avoid "tried to have", e.g. "attempted" or "worked toward" or similar. agree.
• Prose. - "and gained a reputation as being "impossible" to sing" Recast "impossible" as difficult to improve prose and avoid "scare quotes". Disagree.
• Prose. - "Wagner's financial woes" is unencyclopedic. Recast as: "Wagner's financial difficulties", or similar. Disagree.
• Prose. - "Wagner's fortunes took a dramatic upturn in 1864", consider: "Wagner's situation dramatically improved in 1864," or similar. Disagree.
• Missing detail. - "The young king, an ardent admirer of Wagner's operas, had the composer brought to Munich.[84]" Why no mention that Ludwig romantically loved Wagner? Wagner on Ludwig: "I fly to (Ludwig) as to a lover". Ludwig on Wagner: "I am in your angelic arms". If he did that would belng to an article on Ludwig.
• Unencyclopedic prose. - "After grave difficulties in rehearsal", consider: "After especially difficult rehearsals", or similar. Disagree.
• Awkward prose. - "the first Wagner opera premiere in almost 15 years", consider: "Wagner's first opera premiere in almost 15 years", or similar. Disagree.
• Redundant prose. - "The premiere had been scheduled for 15 May, but had been delayed", consider: "The premiere had been scheduled for 15 May, but was delayed" to avoid using the phrase "had been" twice within 8 words. agree.
• Linking. - "and also because the Isolde, Malvina Schnorr von Carolsfeld". Will the casual reader know what an "Isolde" is? Consider linking or explicating, or both. Disagree.
• Prose. - "and also because the Isolde, Malvina Schnorr von Carolsfeld, was hoarse and needed time to recover." She wasn't hoarse, her voice was. Afflicted by a dry, quite harsh voice - Wiktionary entry
• Archaic. - "was herself illegitimate" recast to avoid illegitimate. Disagree.
• Prose. - "Liszt initially disapproved of his daughter's involvement with Wagner, though nevertheless the two men were friends". Recast to avoid "though nevertheless". Disagree.
• Prose, personification of a place. - "The indiscreet affair scandalised Munich". Munich cannot be scandalised, I think you mean: "The indiscreet affair became a scandal in Munich", or similar. Disagree.
• Inconsistent capitalisation. - "suspicious of his influence on the king.[93]" is preceeded by "at the King's request", two paragraphs earlier, same king. agree.
• Confusing, dubious claim/construction. - "In December 1865, Ludwig was finally forced to ask the composer to leave Munich.[94]" Who "forced" Ludwig to do anything, he was afterall, the King. Also "finally" is an excess modifier that adds little.Disagree.
• Clarity, prose. - "He apparently also toyed with the idea of abdicating in order to follow his hero into exile, but Wagner quickly dissuaded him.[95]" 1) "apparently" is a vague modifier, 2) "toyed with the idea" is a colloquialism. Disagree.
• Awkward prose. - "Ludwig installed Wagner at the Villa Tribschen" Use a better word here then "installed", it makes Wagner sound like an appliance or light fixture or something. Disagree.
• Scare quotes. - "At Ludwig's insistence, 'special previews' of the first two works", paraphrase or attribute. They are already sourced.
• Prose. - "at a special festival", what's a "special festival"? Consider: "at a music festival", or similar. Disagree.
• Prose. - "with a new, dedicated, opera house", dedicated to what? Disagree.
• Chronological error. - "Minna had died of a heart attack on 25 January 1866 in Dresden. Wagner did not attend the funeral.[99]" Why, in the midst of reading about the events of 1867–1870 are we now "flashing back" to 1866? To lead to Cosima, obviously.
• Awkward and confusing prose. - "Cosima wrote to Hans von Bülow on a number of occasions asking him to grant her a divorce, but Bülow was unwilling to concede this until after she had two more children with Wagner". As this is written, it reads as though Cosima's having two more children with Wagner was a condition Bülow demanded prior to granting a divorce. Agree.
• Verbose, excess detail. - "The divorce was finally sanctioned, after delays in the legal process, by a Berlin court on 18 July 1870". Consider recasting as: "The divorce was finalised by a Berlin court on 18 July 1870". Disagree.
• Prose. "Richard and Cosima's wedding took place on 25 August 1870.[102]" is awkward and jarring. Consider: "Richard and Cosima were married on 25 August 1870.[102]", or similar. Disagree.
• Avoid specific holidays. "On Christmas Day of that year", consider: "On 25 December". Disagree.
• Prose. - "Wagner arranged a surprise performance (its premiere)". "its premiere" is currently referring to the "performance", not the piece, as you seem to intend. both.
• Prose, citation needed. "The marriage to Cosima lasted to the end of Wagner's life." Recast as: "Richard and Cosima remained married until the end of Wagner's life"^{[citation needed]}, or similar. Disagree.
• Prose. - "Wagner, settled into his new-found domesticity, turned his energies towards completing the Ring cycle." There seems to be a missing word here ala: "Wagner, now settled into his new-found domesticity ...". Disagree.
• Verbose, excess detail. - "He extended the introduction, and wrote a lengthy additional final section." Consider: "He extended the introduction, and wrote an additional final section." Disagree.
• Prose. - "The publication led to several public protests". 1) "The work's publication" would read better, 2) avoid using "publication" and "public" twice within five words. Disagree.

Bayreuth (1871–76)

• Nebulous. - "The local council". What kind of council, do you mean the city council of Bayreuth? agree.
• Repetition. - The phrase: "the town" occurs three times in the first three sentences. agree.
• Excessively wordy and overly detailed prose:
  • "In 1871, Wagner decided to move to the town of Bayreuth, which was to be the location of his new opera house.[105] The local council donated a large plot of land overlooking the town—the "Green Hill"—as a site for the theatre. The Wagners moved to the town the following year, and the foundation stone for the Bayreuth Festspielhaus ("Festival Theatre") was laid." dealt with.
  • Consider: "In 1872, the Wagner's moved to Bayreuth, the future location of his opera house, the Festspielhaus ("Festival Theatre").[105] The local council donated a large plot of land overlooking the town—the "Green Hill"—as a site for the theatre." Also, the second sentence should be moved to notes; it reads as a trivial or excess parenthetical that breaks the flow of the prose. Disagree.
• Excessive and redundant prose. - "Wagner initially announced the first Bayreuth Festival, at which for the first time the Ring cycle would be presented complete, for 1873,[106] but since Ludwig had declined to finance the project, the start of building was delayed and the proposed date for the initial festival was deferred." 1) This general datum seems more appropriate for the Bayreuth Festspielhaus article, 2) "initially announced the first" is poor quality prose, 3) "the first" appears twice within nine words, 4)) Avoid using "initially" and "initial" in the same sentence if possible. Removed 2nd 'initial .
  • Consider: "Wagner announced the Bayreuth Festival for 1873 (at which the Ring cycle would be presented complete for the first time), but Ludwig's initial reluctance to provide financing delayed production", or similar. Disagree.
• Inconsistent punctuation. - "By the spring of 1873 only a third ...", again, sometimes the article uses commas after introductory phrases and sometimes it does not.
• Inconsistent capitalisation. - "the king relented and provided", again, sometimes its "the King" and sometimes its "the king", choose one and make the article consistent. 'agree
• Jargon, wordy. - "The full building programme included", consider: "The building plans included", or similar. Disagree.
• Unencyclopedic adjective. "included a handsome villa". "Handsome" is not an encyclopedic descriptor in this context. Disagree.
• Wordy, excess detail. - "moved from their temporary accommodation on 18 April 1874" consider: "moved on 18 April 1874" Disagree.
• MOS:LQ. - "'Each stone is red with my blood and yours'.[111]" Seems like this terminal punctuation point should be inside the quotes, but maintain accuracy with the OS. See comments by others on this.
• Jarring segue. - "For the design of the Festspielhaus Wagner appropriated some of the ideas of his former colleague", its not yet been established that Wagner worked, presumable with a proper architect, on the design of the Bayreuth Festspielhaus, so this drops on the reader out of nowhere as though Wagner was the primary architect of the theatre. He was.
• Editorialising, punctuation. "The Festspielhaus finally opened on 13 August 1876 with Das Rheingold," 1) omit "finally", 2) you need a comma after that full date. Disagree.
• Prose. "at last taking its place" trim "at last" as excess. Its already been established that the work was years in the making. Disagree.
• Confusing prose. - "as the first evening of the complete Ring cycle; this occasion was therefore the premiere of the complete cycle" 1) you use complete twice within 12 words, 2) the cycle required more than one evening, so "this occasion was therefore the premiere of the complete cycle" is not accurate, as how could the "complete cycle" have occured on the first night? The premiere began on the first night, but certainly it was not complete. I think the issue is caused by your use of "this occasion". agree, rephrpased.
• Prose, clarity. - "performed as the composer had intended as a sequence" recast as: "performed as a sequence as the composer had originally intended".agree.
• Unencyclopedic prose. - (under the baton of Hans Richter).[114] Try: (conducted by Hans Richter).Disagree.
• Prose. - "At the end, critical reactions ranged between" Did critics really write reviews immediately following the end of the performance? "At the end" needs a recast. Disagree.
• Redundancy. "Amongst the disillusioned were Wagner's friend and disciple Friedrich Nietzsche, who, having published his eulogistic essay "Richard Wagner in Bayreuth" before the festival as part of his Untimely Meditations, was bitterly disappointed by what he saw as Wagner's pandering to increasingly exclusivist German nationalism; his breach with Wagner began at this time.[116]" Seems to be a redundant rewording of "Nietzsche broke with Wagner following the first Bayreuth Festival, believing that Wagner's final phase represented a pandering to Christian pieties and a surrender to the new German Reich", from "Influence on literature, philosophy and the visual arts". I will consider.
• Excess modifier. - "The festival firmly established Wagner". There is no need to use "firmly" here. Disagree.
• Prose. "Wagner himself was far from satisfied", omit "himself" as redundant excess. Disagree.
• Prose. - "but early in 1874"

Last years (1876–83)

• Prose. - "Wagner's sudden interest in Christianity at this period, which infuses Parsifal". 1) Recast: "interest in Christianity at this period" as "interest in Christianity during this period", 2) "which infuses Parsifal" is unencyclopedic.
• Capitalisation. - "whom he had met at the 1876 Festival". Should "Festival" be capped in this instance?
• Prose. - "The composition took four years" How can a work of music take time and from whom did it take it away from? Consider: "Wagner spent four years composing the work", or similar. Disagree.
• Clarify. - "much of which Wagner spent in Italy for health reasons". Such as? The article has not yet established that Wagner's health had begun to fail by 1876, or even that he was ailing at the time. Disagree.
• Inconsistent punctuation. - "From 1876 to 1878 Wagner also embarked", again, sometimes the article includes a comma after an introductory phrase and soemtimes it does not.
• Verbose. - "embarked on the last of his documented emotional liaisons" seems like an overly complicated way of saying: "his final love affair", or similar. Disagree.
• Repetition. - "the first Bayreuth Festival" occurs twice in the first three sentences of the section. agree.
• Awkward and jarring prose. - "Wagner was also much troubled by problems of financing Parsifal". No offense, but it sounds to me like whoever wrote this sentence is not a native English speaker, which isn't of course an insult, except that this is an article on the English Wikipedia. Both "Wagner was also much troubled" and "problems of financing Parsifal" are desperately in need of a recast. no offence, but disagree
• Prose. - "but was still forced by his personal financial situation in 1877 to sell the rights of several of his unpublished works". A "personal financial situation" is a concept, not a physical entity, so it cannot force Wagner to do anything. I think you mean to say: "but his personal financial situation was such that in 1877, he had to sell the rights of several of his unpublished works", or similar. Disagree.
• Verbose, redundant. - "Wagner wrote a number of articles in his later years, often on political topics, and often reactionary in tone, repudiating some of his earlier, more liberal, views." Consider: "Wagner wrote a number of political articles in his later years, often reactionary in tone, repudiating some of his earlier, more liberal, views." Disagree.
• Consistency. - "(October 1880) and "Heroism and Christianity" (September 1881)". Nowhere else in the article are the months of his works included in parentheticals. Omit October and Septmber or add months to the numerous other parenthetical dates in the article. agree
• Prose. - "Wagner's sudden interest in Christianity at this period, which infuses Parsifal, was contemporary with his increasing alignment with German nationalism, and required on the part of himself and his associates "the rewriting of some recent Wagnerian history", so as to represent, for example, the Ring as a work reflecting Christian ideals.[125]" 1) its wordy, 2) "infuses" is unencyclopedic fancruft, 3) "required" seems a strange choice of words considering the rewriting was 100% voluntary, 4) "so as to represent, for example" conveys journalistic not encyclopedic tone. Consider: "so as to represent works such as", or similar.
• Jarring parenthetical. - "(1878, but based on a draft written in the 1860s)" this should be moved to notes.
• Awkward prose. - "repeated Wagner's antisemitic preoccupations". Perhaps Wagner was preoccupied with antisemitism, and correct me if I'm wrong about this, but TMK Wagner never actively engaged in antisemitic activities, so it would seem a recast along the lines of: "reiterated Wagner's antisemitic views" would improve the prose. Disagree.
• Prose. - "Wagner completed Parsifal in January 1882, and a second Bayreuth Festival was held for the new opera". Omit :new", he had worked on the piece for years, or recast as "newly completed". or similar. Disagree.
• Unencyclopedic prose. - "After the festival, the Wagner family journeyed to Venice for the winter". 1) "journeyed" in not as encyclopedic in tone as "traveled" or similar, 2) "journeyed to Venice for the winter" is poor grammar. Consider: "After the festival, Wagner traveled with his family to Venice, where he intended to remain during the winter", or similar. Disagree.
• Missing article. - "The legend that the attack was prompted by argument with Cosima". Do you mean "by argument" or "by an argument"? Disagree.
• Asserting a negative. - "The legend that the attack was prompted by argument with Cosima over Wagner's supposedly amorous interest in the singer Carrie Pringle, who had been a Flower-maiden in Parsifal at Bayreuth, is without credible evidence.[131" Is this necessary? Yes.
• Parenthetical or note? - "Franz Liszt's two piano pieces titled La lugubre gondola evoke the passing of a black-shrouded funerary gondola bearing Wagner's remains over the Grand Canal.[132]" This is quite jarring and trivial in nature in its current placement within the text. This aside, which is really about List more than Wagner, should be moved to notes, or to a section detailing notable homage to Wagner. Disagree.

Operas

• Awkward prose. - "Wagner's operatic works are his primary artistic legacy", consider: "Wagner's primary artistic legacy are his operatic works."
• Excess, redundant parenthetical. - "writing the libretto (the text and lyrics) to others". Since libretto is linked here, there is no need for a parenthetical describing what a libretto is.
• Scare quotes. - "Wagner wrote his own libretti, which he referred to as 'poems'.[135]" There is no need to enclose "poems" inside quotes here, unless of course, Wagner invented poetry, which of course he didn't.
• Awkward, excess prose. - "From 1849 onwards". Omit "onwards" as excessive and awkward.
• Awkward and confusing prose. "he urged a new concept of opera". This needs a recast. How did he urge a new concept? How could one even urge a concept? Perhaps he urged other composers to adopt his concept, but you cannot urge a concept. Consider: "he advanced a new concept of opera" or "he promoted a new concept of opera", or similar.
• Vague, scare quote. - "often referred to as 'music drama'" 1) by whom, 2) more unnecessary scare quotes.
• Prose. - "Wagner developed a compositional style in which the importance of the orchestra is equal to that of the singers." Consider: "Wagner developed a compositional style in which the importance of the orchestral music is equal to that of the vocal parts", or similar.
• Clarity. - "The orchestra's dramatic role in the later operas". I assume you mean to say: "The orchestra's dramatic role in Wagner's later operas", or similar.
• Redundancy. - "often referred to as 'music drama' (although he later rejected this term)" is closely followed by "These operas are still, despite Wagner's reservations, referred to by many writers[139] as 'music dramas'.[140]" just three sentences later.

Early works (to 1842)

• Prose. - "Wagner's earliest attempts at opera were often uncompleted". 1) "attempts at opera" is poor grammar. I think you mean to say: "attempts at writing operas", or similar. 2) "were often" is vague. Consider: "Wagner's abandoned some of his earliest attempts at writing an opera, such as: ...", or similar.
• Merge. - "Abandoned works include ..." merge this with the above topic sentence for improved flow.
• Prose. - "was unperformed in the composer's lifetime" consider "was never performed in the composer's lifetime"
• Awkward prose. - "Rienzi (1842) was Wagner's first opera to be successfully staged.[141]" Consider: "Wagner's first successfully staged opera was Rienzi (1842).[141]" Though it seems to me that this is redundant with earlier text regarding Rienzi, or that on the first mention of the work it the article should have explicated this datum.
• Linking, jargon, clarity. - "the clear influence of Meyerbeerean". Will the casual reader understand what Meyerbeerean means?
• Unencyclopedic, fancrufty prose. - "did not exhibit the innovations that would mark Wagner's place in musical history". Consider: "did not include the musical innovations later associated with Wagner", or similar.
• Excess. "Later in life, Wagner said". Is "Later in life" necessary? Would "later" accomplish the same thing, because I think it goes without saying that Wagner's opinions originate from the period during which he was living.
• Wordy, awkward prose. - "they have been performed only rarely in the last hundred years". Wouldn't "rarely performed during the last hundred years" suffice?
• Excess vague parenthetical, awkward prose. - "(although the overture to Rienzi is an occasional concert piece)." Recast "is an occasional concert piece" as: "is occasionally performed in concert", or similar.

"Romantic operas" (1843–51)

• Clarity. - "Wagner's middle stage output began with". Throughout the article there are references to Wagner's "stages", but I don't see exactly were this is explicated. Did he only have a "middle stage", or was there an early and late stage as well? If so, where is the article is this made clear?
• Vague scare quote. - Yet another, "are sometimes referred to as Wagner's "romantic operas".[144]"^{[according to whom?]}
• Wordy, vague prose. - "They reinforced the reputation, amongst the public in Germany and beyond, that Wagner had begun to establish with Rienzi." 1) "amongst the public in Germany and beyond" is unencyclopedic and vague. What does "beyond" mean? Consider: "They reinforced the reputation that Wagner had begun to establish with Rienzi."
• Prose. - "the mature operas that Cosima staged at the Bayreuth Festival". As opposed to the immature operas Wagner presumably wrote for children? "Mature operas" is nebulous, please clarify its meaning.
• Misplaced modifier. - "and have been frequently recorded", recast as "and have been recorded frequently"
• Unencyclopedic, awkward prose. - "They were also the operas by which his fame spread during his lifetime." Did the inanimate operas spread his "fame", which is not an encyclopedic term in this context.

Starting the Ring

• Prose. - "Wagner's late dramas are considered his masterpieces."^{[according to whom?]} Late dramas implies that there were early and middle dramas. Were there?
• Prose. - "commonly referred to as the Ring or "Ring cycle". Is there a missing article here? Would someone say: "I went to see "Ring Cycle" tonight, it was fantastic"? Consider: "commonly referred to as the Ring or the 'Ring cycle'." Also, why is the Ring not in italics in the same sentence as "Ring Cycle"?
• Misplaced descriptor. - "is a set of four operas based loosely on figures and elements", consider: "is a set of four operas loosely based on figures and elements ..."
• Excess detail. - "particularly from the later Norse mythology". Is it necessary to denote "later Norse mythology" when "Norse mythology" will suffice. This excess detail is more suited to the topical articel dedicated to the work.
• Excess. "Wagner specifically developed the libretti". Omit "specifically" as excess.
• Prose. - "They were also influenced by Wagner's concepts of ancient Greek drama, in which tetralogies were a component of Athenian festivals, and which he had amply discussed in his essay "Oper und Drama".[151]" 1) "Wagner's concepts" is not the best word choice. Consider: "Wagner's interpretation" or "Wagner's understanding" or "Wagner's appreciation", or similar. 2) "amply discussed" is awkward and unencyclopedic.
• In-line attribution needed. - "In Das Rheingold, with its 'relentlessly talky 'realism' [and] the absence of lyrical 'numbers'",[152]" This quote needs in-line attribution.
• Unencyclopedic adjective. - "Wagner came very close", avoid using the modifier, "very", in academic writing.
• Unencyclopedic prose. - "with Siegmund's almost full-blown aria". "Almost full-blown" is unencyclopedic prose.
• Redundant prose. "appearance of the Valkyries themselves". As with Graham Colm, I suggest you avoid "themselves" here for similar reasons given to avoid the unnecessary use of "himself" throughout the article.
• Scare quotes. "shows more 'operatic' traits". These quotes are unnecessary.
• Punctuation. - "and the quasi-choral appearance of the Valkyries themselves, shows more "operatic" traits". Omit the comma after "themselves" as it is separating the subject from the predicate.
• Contradiction. - According to Millington (quoted in the section): "A thoroughgoing synthesis of poetry and music is achieved without any notable sacrifice in musical expression."[153] This would seem to condradict the "music as subsidiary to drama" approach that the article implies Wagner preferred and sought to achieve.
• Wordy sentence. - "Die Walküre, with Siegmund's almost full-blown aria (Winterstürme) in the first act, and the quasi-choral appearance of the Valkyries themselves, shows more "operatic" traits, but has been assessed by Barry Millington as "the music drama that most satisfactorily embodies the theoretical principles of 'Oper und Drama'... A thoroughgoing synthesis of poetry and music is achieved without any notable sacrifice in musical expression."[153]"

Tristan und Isolde and Die Meistersinger

• Unnecessary modifier. - "conceived by Wagner in 1845 as a sort of comic pendant to Tannhäuser". Omit "a sort of".
• Archaic, misused term. - "musico-dramatical". "musico-dramatic" is a proper term, but dramatical an archaic word.
• Confusing. - "his only mature comedy", does the article properly and previously explicate the meaning of the term: "mature comedy"?
• Confusing, prose, jargon. - "two works that are also part of the regular operatic canon.[154]" As opposed to the irregular canon. What does this mean? Does "regular operatic canon" refer to Wagner, or to operas in general?
• Prose. - "Tristan is often granted a special place in musical history". 1) "a special place" is not encyclopedic prose, 2) "in musical history". I think you mean to say: "in music history", otherwise it sounds like you are talking about the history of musicals.
• Awkward prose. - "many see it as the beginning of the move away"
• Prose. - "and consider that it lays the groundwork for the direction of classical music in the 20th century". "consider that it lays" needs a recast.
• Attribution. - "with its use of 'the art of transition' between". You are quoting someone here but it is not at all clear who.
• Verbose. - "Completed in 1859, the work was given its first performance in Munich". Consider: "Completed in 1859, the work was first performed in Munich", or similar. How can one give a "work" a performance?

Completely normal phrasing. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See [4]. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or more precisely [5]. Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Confusing. - What's a "comic pendant"?
• Unencyclopedic prose. - "under the baton of Bülow". Consider: "conducted by Bülow" so as to avoid the journalese-esque: "under the baton" text string.
• Prose. - "it is also held up by some". Avoid "held up by some" as unencyclopedic. Consider: "regarded by some", or similar.

Completing the Ring

• Wordy sentence. - "When Wagner returned to writing the music for the last act of Siegfried and for Götterdämmerung (Twilight of the Gods), as the final part of the Ring was eventually called, his style had changed once more to something more recognisable as "operatic" than the aural world of Rheingold and Walküre, though it was still thoroughly stamped with his own originality as a composer and suffused with leitmotifs.[161]"
• Scare quotes, prose. - "more recognisable as 'operatic' than the aural world of Rheingold and Walküre". 1) Why is "operatic" in quotes? 2) what is an "aural world".
• Confusing. - Waht does "the book for Götterdämmerung" mean?
• Scare quotes. - "conceived more 'traditionally' than". Why is "traditionally" in quotes?
• Prose. - "the self-imposed strictures of the Gesamtkunstwerk had become relaxed". I assume you mean to say that Wagner relaxed the strictures, which is better than impling that they had become relaxed by some unknown force.
• Awkward prose. - "The differences also result". Perhaps "resulted" would be better here.
• Verbose. - "The differences also result from Wagner's development as a composer during the period in which he wrote Tristan, Meistersinger and the Paris version of Tannhäuser.[163]" Consider: "The differences also resulted from Wagner's development as a composer while writing Tristan, Meistersinger and the Paris version of Tannhäuser.[163]" Also, is there a "Paris version" of Tannhäuser, or was Tannhäuser rewritten in Paris. Are there two extant versions?
• Consistency. - "From act 3 of Siegfried onwards" is closely preceeded by: "the third part of the Ring cycle". There seems to be numerous inconsistencies regarding the rendering of numerals, sometimes as digits and sometimes as prose.
• Verbose prose. - "Wagner took 26 years from writing the first draft of a libretto in 1848 until he completed Götterdämmerung in 1874." Consider: "From 1848, Wagner spent 26 years writing Götterdämmerung, which he completed in 1874."

That would be misleading, as he did not work continuously on it. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, but then how about: "From 1848, Wagner sporadically worked on Götterdämmerung, which he completed in 1874"? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This: "Following the first Bayreuth Festival, Wagner began work on Parsifal, his final opera. The composition took four years, much of which Wagner spent in Italy for health reasons[121]" (from "Last years (1876–83)"), sounds to me like he worked on Parsifal continuously for four years. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Dubious, vague. - "The Ring takes about 15 hours to perform and is the only undertaking of such size to be regularly presented on the world's stages.[165]" "to be regularly presented" implies that other works of similar size are performed, just not as often, which helps make this sentence seem like trivial excess more appropriate for the topical article deedicated to the work.

Parsifal

• Prose. - "Ulrike Kienzle has commented that 'Wagner's turn to Christian mythology ...'" 1) don't use "that" to introduce a quote, 2) the passage is unnecessarily verbose. Consider: "Ulrike Kienzle commented: 'Wagner's turn to Christian mythology ...'"
• Comma splice. - "and its expression, as perceived by some commentators". Omit the comma after "expression".
• Redundancy. - "his only work written especially for his Bayreuth Festspielhaus". Consider: "his only work written especially for the Bayreuth Festspielhaus".
• Confusing. - "and which is described in the score". How did the music score verbally describe something?
• Prose. - "has a storyline suggested by elements of the legend of the Holy Grail." Again, no offense intended, but this sounds like it was written by a non-native English speaker. Consider: "has a storyline featuring elements of the legend of the Holy Grail."

But that would be misleading, if not incorrect. Personally I'm not sure I like "storyline" used for operas though. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Verbose, awkward construction. - "Wagner's final opera, Parsifal (1882), which was his only work written especially for his Bayreuth Festspielhaus and which is described in the score as a "Bühnenweihfestspiel" ("festival play for the consecration of the stage"), has a storyline suggested by elements of the legend of the Holy Grail." Consider: "Wagner's final opera, Parsifal (1882), was his only work written especially for the Bayreuth Festspielhaus and which is described in the score as a "Bühnenweihfestspiel" ("festival play for the consecration of the stage"). The work's storyline features elements of the legend of the Holy Grail", or similar.
• Confusing, ESL-esque. - "It also carries elements of Buddhist renunciation suggested by Wagner's readings of Schopenhauer.[166]" What does this mean?
• Redundnacy. "It" or "its" appears six times within three sentences, four in just one sentence.
• Redundancy. "the composer" is used excessively throughout the article when "Wagner" or "he/him" could easily be substituted for improved variety.
• Lack of criticism. - "'a diaphanous score of unearthly beauty and refinement'.[26]" Is the work universally regarded with favour? There is an utter lack of critical commentary in the article, not just regarding Parsifal, but with each of his works generally.

Non-operatic music

• Clarity. - "These include a symphony (written at the age of 19)," Does the symphony have a name?
• Redundant, awkward and confusing prose. - "These include a symphony (written at the age of 19), the Faust Overture (the only completed part of an intended symphony on the subject), some overtures, and choral and piano pieces.[171]" "symphony" is used twice (and in a confusing manner) and "the Faust Overture" is awkwardly placed prior to "some overtures".
• Clumsy prose. - "His most commonly performed work that is not an extract from an opera is the Siegfried Idyll for chamber orchestra, which has several motifs in common with the Ring cycle.[172]" Consider: "His most commonly performed non-operatic work is the Siegfried Idyll. Written for chamber orchestra, it shares several motifs in common with the Ring cycle.[172]", or similar.
• Prose. - "either in the original piano version". Consider: "either in the original piano arrangement", or similar.
• Performance statistics. - This section seems to know the frequescy of performances of his works, but is this WP:OR, or is the research in this regard the product of the sources?
• Clarity. - "from Wagner's middle and late-stage operas". Again, the terms "middle" and "late-stage operas" are used as though previously established, but unless I am missing something, it would seem that the article's author is assuming that casual readers will understand what this means. Will they, and should we write for those already well-versed in Wagner?

Prose writings

• "Prose writings" seems a bit redundant, though I realise its not technically incorrect. Maybe just "writings"?
• Unencyclopedic fancrufty prose. - "Wagner was an extremely prolific writer, authoring numerous books, poems, and articles, as well as voluminous correspondence." 1) "extremely" is an excess modifier, 2) "as well as voluminous correspondence" seems like a tedious way to say he wrote many letters.
• Prose. - "His writings covered a wide range of topics, including autobiography". Did he write about the subject of autobiography, or did he write autobiographical works?
• Redundant. - "Wagner planned for a collected edition of his publications as early as 1865;[178] he believed that such an edition". Avoid the second "edition" here.
• Prose. - "would help the world understand his intellectual development and artistic aims" "help the world understand" is awkward and unencyclopedic. Do you mean to say "help his fans understand" or similar?
• Repetitive. - "Wagner planned for a collected edition of his publications as early as 1865;[178] he believed that such an edition would help the world understand his intellectual development and artistic aims.[179] The first such edition".
• Unencyclopedic prose. - "but was doctored to suppress or alter articles that were an embarrassment to him". "was doctored" seems slangy to me, but perhaps its another EngVar issue as Ian has suggested below. Consider: "but was edited to suppress or alter articles that were an embarrassment to him", or similar.
• Redundant prose. - "alter articles that were an embarrassment to him (e.g. those praising Meyerbeer), or by altering dates on some articles" Consider: "alter articles that were an embarrassment to him (e.g. those praising Meyerbeer), or by changing dates to reinforce Wagner's own account of his progress", or similar.
• Confusing prose. - "originally published for close friends only in a very small edition". Was the book miniature? Avoid "very small" and consider "limited", or similar for clarity.

A limited edition is something different. Nothing wrong with this. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Excess parentheticals, wordy. - "The first public edition (with many passages suppressed by Cosima) appeared in 1911; the first attempt at a full edition (in German) appeared in 1963.[181]" The article relies too heavily on parentheticals IMO. Consider: "The first public edition, with several passages suppressed by Cosima, appeared in 1911; the first full German language edition appeared in 1963.[181]"
• Awkward prose or EngVar? - "There have been modern complete or partial editions of Wagner's writings," What's a "partial edition"?

Any American dictionary will help you there. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Prose. - "As at 2012 20 volumes have appeared". 1) I think you mean "as of 2012", 2) you need a comma after the introductory phrase.
• Wordy. - "which, however, omitted the essay "Das Judenthum in der Musik" and Mein Leben.[183]" Omit "however" and teh two comma caused by its use here to improve flow.
• Singular or plural? - "The English translations of Wagner's prose in eight volumes by W. Ashton Ellis". Are we using the plural of translations properly here? Do you consider them plural because they were printed in eight volumes?
• Redundant. - "estimated to amount to"
• Redundnat. - "is still under way under"

Influence on music

• Unencyclopedic, fancrufty prose. - "Wagner inspired great devotion." Also, "great" is a vague modifier.
• Prose. - "Anton Bruckner and Hugo Wolf were greatly indebted to him". Again, overuse of "greatly".
• Prose. - "Wagner made a major contribution". Consider: "Wagner made a significant contribution", or similar.
• Possible copyvio, non-free use image. - File:Photo of Gustav Mahler by Moritz Nähr 01.jpg appears to be PD in the US only, and the file is tagged as not appropriate for Wikicommons. Is there a good FUR for an image of Mahler in an article about Wagner?
• Unencyclopedic prose. - "pointing the way". Consider: "leading the way", or similar.
• Confusing. - "were greatly indebted to him". Did they owe Wagner money? Recast for a more encyclopedic tone.
• Repetition. - "Wagner made a major contribution to the principles and practice of conducting. His essay "About Conducting" (1869)[194] advanced Hector Berlioz's technique of conducting and claimed that conducting was a means by which a musical work could be re-interpreted, rather than simply a mechanism for achieving orchestral unison. He exemplified this approach in his own conducting, which was significantly more flexible than the disciplined approach of Mendelssohn".
• Verbose. "inspired a whole new generation of conductors". Consider: "inspired a generation of conductors".
• Prose, attribute claim. - "Phil Spector's wall of sound recording technique was, it has been claimed, heavily influenced by Wagner.[203]" Consider: "It has been claimed that Phil Spector's wall of sound recording technique was heavily influenced by Wagner.[203]"^{[according to whom?]}

Influence on literature, philosophy and the visual arts

• Scare quotes. - "'rebirth' of European culture in opposition to Apollonian rationalist 'decadence'." Neither "rebirth" or "decadence" are creative enough to require quotes.
• Redundant point. - "Nietzsche broke with Wagner following the first Bayreuth Festival, believing that Wagner's final phase represented a pandering to Christian pieties and a surrender to the new German Reich." From Bayreuth (1871–76): "Amongst the disillusioned were Wagner's friend and disciple Friedrich Nietzsche, who, having published his eulogistic essay "Richard Wagner in Bayreuth" before the festival as part of his Untimely Meditations, was bitterly disappointed by what he saw as Wagner's pandering to increasingly exclusivist German nationalism; his breach with Wagner began at this time." This is a nearly verbatim rewording of a previous point.
• Prose. - "Nietzsche expressed his displeasure with the later Wagner". Sounds like Wagner was two people. Omit "later" as redundant excess or consider: "Nietzsche later expressed his displeasure with Wagner", or similar.
• Unencyclopedic prose. - "Charles Baudelaire, Stéphane Mallarmé and Paul Verlaine worshipped Wagner.[206]" I think even Ian might agree that "worshipped" is not the best choice here, unless of course, there was a Wagner cult of which I am unaware.
• Verbose. - "In a list of major cultural figures influenced by Wagner, Bryan Magee includes". Consider: "Significant cultural figures influenced by Wagner include", or similar.
• Unencyclopedic prose. - "Wagnerian themes inhabit T. S. Eliot's The Waste Land". Please consider any word other than inhabit.
• Awkward construction. - "Wagner had publicly analysed the Oedipus myth before Freud was born in terms of its psychological significance, insisting that incestuous desires are natural and normal, and perceptively exhibiting the relationship between sexuality and anxiety.[214]" Consider: "Wagner had publicly analysed the Oedipus myth in terms of its psychological significance before Freud was born, insisting that incestuous desires are natural and normal, and perceptively exhibiting the relationship between sexuality and anxiety.[214]"

Opponents and supporters

• Awkward prose. - "German musical life divided into two factions". Consider recasting "German musical life".
• Repetition. - "supporters of Johannes Brahms; the latter, with the support of the powerful critic Eduard Hanslick (of whom Beckmesser in Meistersinger is in part a caricature) championed traditional forms and led the conservative front against Wagnerian innovations.[216] They were supported".
• Slangy, unencyclopedic prose. - "contains a deliberately tongue-in-cheek quotation" Avoid "tongue-in-cheek" as a slangy colloquialism.
• One-sentence paragraph. - "Wagner's followers (known as Wagnerians or Wagnerites)[221] have formed many societies dedicated to Wagner's life and work.[222]" Merge with above.
• Lacking objective criticism. - There is a general lack of criticism in the article, but one would expect to find some in this section. The closest the section comes to a proper critique is prefaced with a compliment: "Wagner has wonderful moments, and dreadful quarters of an hour." So it would seem that the most notable criticism suggests that Wagner may have written a poor 15-minutes here and there. Even the criticism comes across as complimentary: "Even those who ... opposed Wagner ... could not deny his influence. Indeed ... many composers ... felt the need to break with Wagner precisely because his influence was so unmistakable and overwhelming."

Film and stage portrayals

• Awkward prose. - "The earliest was a silent film made by Carl Froelich in 1913 and featured in the title role the composer Giuseppe Becce". Consider: "The earliest was a silent film made by Carl Froelich in 1913 that featured the composer Giuseppe Becce in the title role".

"The earliest was a silent film made by Carl Froelich in 1913 with the composer Giuseppe Becce playing the composer, as well as writing the film score since Wagner's music was still in copyright." - don't say "the title role" if you haven't given the title. Do you know if Wagner's music was "unavailable" or just too expensive? Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• One-sentence paragraph. - "Jonathan Harvey's opera Wagner Dream (2007) intertwines the events surrounding Wagner's death with the story of Wagner's uncompleted opera outline Die Sieger (The Victors).[225]" Merge with the preceeding text.

Bayreuth Festival

• Wordy prose. - "Since Wagner's death, the Bayreuth Festival, which has become an annual event, has been successively directed by his widow, his son Siegfried, the latter's widow Winifred Wagner, their two sons Wieland and Wolfgang Wagner, and, presently, two of the composer's great-granddaughters, Eva Wagner-Pasquier and Katharina Wagner.[226]" Consider: "Since Wagner's death, the annual Bayreuth Festival has been successively directed by his widow, his son Siegfried, the latter's widow Winifred Wagner, their two sons Wieland and Wolfgang Wagner, and, presently, two of the composer's great-granddaughters, Eva Wagner-Pasquier and Katharina Wagner.[226]"

Racism and antisemitism

• Scare quotes. - "between 'superior' and 'inferior' races".

A lot more scary if the quotes are dropped! Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its not plagarism if the content isn't intellectually and/or creatively unique, which in this context, I don't think the terms are, but I could be wrong. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism isn't the issue; we don't want to be talking about "inferior races" without distancing the concept by quotes. Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other interpretations

• Repetition. - "Wagner's ideas are amenable to socialist interpretations; many of his ideas".
• Editorialising. - "The writer Robert Donington has produced a detailed, if controversial". Omit "if controversial".

Not if reverenced. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it is properly referenced, then its to Donington, Robert (1979), Wagner's Ring and its Symbols, London: Faber Paperbacks. ISBN 0-571-04818-8, which I doubt. Sounds like WP:OR to me. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi appropriation

• Awkward prose. - "the Nazi hierarchy as a whole did not share Hitler's enthusiasm for Wagner's operas". Consider: "much of the Nazi hierarchy did not share Hitler's enthusiasm for Wagner's operas", or similar. Yes, its vague, but its likely more accurate and it sounds less apologetic, which is a general problem with this section.
• Excess article. - "and attended the productions at the theatre" I think you mean: "and attended productions at the theatre", or similar.
• Clumsy prose. - "There continues to be debate about the extent to which Wagner's views might have influenced Nazi thinking.[n 19]" Consider: "Debate continues about the extent to which Wagner's views might have influenced Nazi philosophy.[n 19]"
• Asserting a negative. - "but cannot credibly be regarded as a conduit of Wagner's own views."
• Scare quotes. - "to 'reeducate' political prisoners by exposure to 'national music'.[249]"
• Editorialising. - "There seems to be no evidence to support claims, sometimes made,[250] that his music was played at Nazi death camps during the Second World War.[n 20]"

End review. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I have made comments inline in italics. If you intend to continue in such detail, I may not specifically comment in future on matters of taste, on which I will continue to give preference to my own views.--Smerus (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"There are no spoken words in an opera, so how could the music be 'subsidiary to drama' when the drama originates from the music?" Please see Musical form. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly my point. We shouldn't be writing this article only for those with a strong comprehension of opera or even music theory and one should not have to read Wikilinks not provided in the accompanying prose in order to understand the article. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have now dealt appropriately with the above.--Smerus (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually it looks to me that you skipped over at least 75% of my comments. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I beleive I have responded to every one of your first batch of comments with my in-line reponses, and I have made changes in the article where I agreed with your suggestions (and not where I didn't). I have now done the same (without the in-line repsonses) for your second batch of comments. With thanks, --Smerus (talk) 06:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re latest batch of comments (2 Feb 2013). I disagree with all your rewording proposals, except as regards 'aborted'. I also have a higher estimation of readers' levels of understanding than yours, I think. MOS:AMP does not apply because this is a quote and Queen Victoria used "&". I disagree that Wagner's receipt of the order of the Red Eagle (1844) is in any way notable. Important events -I quote what Wagner himself wrote - and he was often inconsistent - c.f. Walt Whitman -"do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself - I am great - I contain multitudes". Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 04:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per your comment: "I quote what Wagner himself wrote - and he was often inconsistent". Right, Wagner "was often inconsistent" in what he wrote, but that is not at all explained in the article (TMK), which should not contain contradictions unless that contradiction is framed in the context of Wagner's inconsistencies. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. - I have found far too many basic prose issues that the nom has chosen to not address. There are dozens of sourcing problems, verbose and awkward sentence structures, inconsistent punctuation and spelling, unencyclopedic colloquialisms, missing or redundant notable datums, chronological issues, factual errors, awkward and redundant prose, etcetera. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have now made in-line responses to comments of 4 February, and have or will (or will not) make changes as indicated. I note GabeMc's opposition, but, as even Wagner himself found, you can't please all of the poeple all of the time. I specifically contest however that there are, in relation to any of his comments, any missing notable data, or that there are any factual errors; nor have I seen in his comments any problems about sourcing; all of which issues might have been, as his other comments are not, material as regards FAC. --Smerus (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Examples of missing notable datums are: his 1840 imprisonment, Ludwig's romantic love for Wagner, the article does not explicate that Wagner's teachers felt that he did not show aptitude in music, the Nietzsche-Wagner relationship is mentioned only in passing, and twice in a most redundant fashion, in 1844 Wagner was awarded the Prussian order of the Red Eagle (why mention the occupations of his mistresse's husbands but not this). An example of a factual error is that Geyer died in 1821 yet was still traveling with the Wagner's in 1827 (now corrected due to my review). In terms of sourcing issues, you have the most awkward reference construction I have ever seen. Why "sources" and "other sources", do you mean "sources" and "further reading"? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Can someone more knowledgeable then myself explain if the article's use of File:Photo of Gustav Mahler by Moritz Nähr 01.jpg constitutes a possible copyvio in its country of origin? It appears to be PD in the US only, and the file is tagged as not appropriate for Wikicommons. Is there a good FUR for an image of Mahler in an article about Wagner? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegates' comments[edit]

I agree with some of GabeMc's points and would like to see more of an effort made to reach an agreement. The use of "himself", which is often redundant occurs several times in the article (and incidentally in the nominators replies above). Its only function seems to be to add stress where none is needed. This sentence is particularly affected, "The topic of Wagner and the Jews is further complicated by allegations, which may have been credited by Wagner himself, that he himself was of Jewish ancestry, via his supposed father Geyer". I also saw one redundant "in order to". This contribution is very close to FA standard and it would be a shame to see it archived because good advice is not being acted on. Graham Colm (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this. I will further review in the light of your advice and GabeMc's points (on many of which, despite his assertions and my reservations, I have already acted).--Smerus (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a start by dealing with 'himself' and will further review the points of GabeMc.--Smerus (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse Graham's admonishment to act on good advice. Gabe has certainly picked up on some issues worth rectifying and I'd expect the nominator to review anything that is clearly a factual, clarity or grammar problem. I also tend to agree with Gabe on most of his scare quote concerns. OTOH, I'm broadly in agreement with Johnbod and Smerus that many of the comments are a matter of EngVar or "taste". Leaving aside the points that Smerus has already agreed with or acted upon, when I look at the phrases described as "unencyclopedic", "slangy" or "awkward" , the only ones that stand out for me as being significantly improved by adopting Gabe's wording are: "financial woes", "held up by some", and "Almost full-blown". I'm also surprised by the suggestion that some of the prose reads like it was written by a non-English speaker, as some of the comments read that way to me, for instance the suggestions that "Wagner's operatic works are his primary artistic legacy" is improved by "Wagner's primary artistic legacy are his operatic works" (it's one legacy, right?), or that "attempts at opera" is poorly expressed (it's the sort of phrasing I'd expect to see in any book or article on a composer). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "attempts at opera", see for instance [6] and [7]. Toccata quarta (talk) 12:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a review is not expected or required to be 100% beyond reproach, so any of my suggestions that relate to EngVar are by nature subjective. I concede the point regarding "attempts at opera", it just seems awkward to me. I would never say that Hendrix made attempts at blues, though I might say "Hendrix made attempts to compose blues songs", or similar. Also, regarding Ian's comment: "it's one legacy, right?". Well, I guess I should have written: "Wagner's primary artistic legacy is his operatic works", but that doesn't seem like an improvement either in hindsight. On another note, this is the first time I've ever seen a delegate negatively review a review. Ian, are you speaking here as a delegate or a contributor/co-nom? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well as a delegate I'd hope my comments are taken as constructive rather than positive or negative, aimed as they are at gaining resolution to outstanding concerns. BTW, while it's the job of the reviewer to judge an article, it's very much the job of the delegates to judge reviews, weighing up their comprehensiveness and how well they reflect the FAC criteria, and we will on occasion express that judgement in written form in nominations. I've gathered that you recognise that some of your comments are subjective, but a review as detailed as the one you're posting makes it harder to determine what's simply a suggestion, and what's a serious concern that's contributing to your opposition. It might help to move not only your resolved comments to the FAC talk page but also (under a separate heading of course) less vital prose suggestions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Expressing a judgement about a review and insulting a reviewer are not the same thing Ian. If so many of my comments sounded like an ESL speaker, then at least they won't be on the front page of Wikipedia in May. This is an FAC talk page, not a featured article in mainspace, so I find it more than a bit silly that you would use a tense error and a matter of taste against me in a feeble attempt to undermine my review and assert your assumed dominance over the FAC process. How about: "Wagnerian themes inhabit T. S. Eliot's The Waste Land", "Wagner's sudden interest in Christianity ... which infuses Parsifal", "Charles Baudelaire, Stéphane Mallarmé and Paul Verlaine worshipped Wagner", or "He apparently also toyed with the idea". Am I wrong about these examples of less than brilliant prose? Do you really think its not notable enough for inclusion that Wagner was imprisoned for debt or that a significant motivating factor in Ludwig's patronage of Wagner was a homosexual love for him? Or that Wagner's teachers felt that he did not show any musical aptitude? Or that his sisters significantly influenced his interest in opera? Also, since you seem to be discouraging my review generally (something I have never seen from a delegate at FAC), I have now hastily concluded it so as to avoid opening myself up to further personal attacks from you. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ian, I'm curious what you think about this: "Wagner's controversial writings ... have antisemitic content". Is this also an EngVar issue or would "contain" or "include" be an improvement over "have"? It is my understanding that "have" is a possesive verb and should therefore not be used where the subject is inanimate. Perhaps you could clarify my mistake, assuming I am making one regarding this point. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Borderline to me, I wouldn't say "contain" or "include" work any better with "content" -- perhaps "express antisemitic sentiments"? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW, I originally suggested: "especially where they contain antisemitic sentiments", or similar. To which the nom replied, Your taste vs. mine. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "Lacking objective criticism", I have to agree. A lack of negative contemporary criticism is a big problem in articles on composers of classical music. The articles Gustav Mahler and Olivier Messiaen became FAs without containing any. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If Wagner was as musically innovative and intellectually controversial as the article suggests (and I'm certain that he was), then there would have been much negative critical commentary written contemporary with Wagner, as with all artists who changed the status quo. I'm not seeing anything along those lines in this article. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I used "contemporary" as synonymous with "recent". Toccata quarta (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I realised that, but surely there were opponents of Wagner who voiced more critical opinions (at the time and now) then "Wagner has wonderful moments, and dreadful quarters of an hour." Also, Wagner is not universally admired today, though one would never learn that by reading the article. Some list him as one of the most overrated composers of all time. At any rate, the criticism of Wagner by his contemporaries goes largely ignored in the article, except to preface such comments with how amazingly perfect and overwhelmingly influential he was. This work would be a good place to start in terms of introducing some objectivity and historical accuracy to an article that currently reads as though everyone agreed that Wagner was the greatest and nobody criticized his operatic innovations. Per: "The articles Gustav Mahler and Olivier Messiaen became FAs without containing any [criticism]", please see WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you referring me to WP:OSE? I disapproved of the lack of modern criticism in these articles. Relax. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you're right. I misread your comment. You have my full apologies. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are still plenty of people in music who don't like Wagner's music, and always have been, but it would be a tough job to argue against its enormous influence and importance in various ways, or his brilliance as a composer. I don't know what serious attempts have been made at this. Johnbod (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For serious attempts at critiquing Wagner see: Theodor W. Adorno, Karin Bauer, Reinhold Grimm, James Martin Harding, Henry Theophilus Finck, Carl Dahlhaus, Kevin Karnes, Mary A. Cicora, Ronald Taylor, Michael Saffle, Joseph Bennett and Wilhelm Richard Wagner and Thomas S. Grey (among others). E.g. "The musically cultured public of the earlier nineteenth century had a comfortable, established conception of what music was – and to them it was not what Wagner composed." —Ronald Taylor. Works of critical commentary regarding Wagner's music most certainly do exist, they are just not currently represented in the article, which would seem to fail both 1b and 1d of the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria based on this glaring omision. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are shelves of it, much of it written by proper musicologists, unlike most of the rag-tag bunch you list. And the article covers the very critical debate over his various texts as literature & their political impact etc. Have you read all this lot? Does it contain much 'criticising his operatic innovations', let alone 'arguing against his enormous influence and importance in various ways, or his brilliance as a composer"? Johnbod (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you are aware of high quality sources that contain critical commentary of Wagner yet you have not provided any here: "I don't know what serious attempts have been made at this." FTR, I never said anything even close to "arguing against his enormous influence and importance in various ways, or his brilliance as a composer", and that is a strawman argument. Yes he was brilliant, yes he was massively influential, I never said that he wasn't. But was his music universally accepted with favour and should this article pass FAC without any of the high-quality critical commentary of which you now appear to be aware? If so, why? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have barely edited the article, which, I must remind you, is his biography. We have several other long ones on his music, where most of this would belong. I'd certainly not object to a couple of paragraphs more, but there is enough straightforward musical analysis and criticism here for an FA biography. There is certainly room for a whole FA on Reception history of Richard Wagner or something more elegantly titled. Johnbod (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or, perhaps a two or three paragraph sub-section in this article titled: "Criticism", or similar. Afterall, we already have a section titled: "Influence and legacy", so "Criticism" might fit quite nicely in there. Also, you aren't including Thomas S. Grey in the "rag-tag bunch" are you? From the rag-tag bunch at the Encyclopedia Britannica: "Tannhäuser was coolly received but soon proved a steady attraction; after this, each new work achieved public popularity despite persistent hostility from many critics." GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A point from Adam Cuerden[edit]

Minor point, but the Franz Betz image, File:Betz Franz.png, is very odd. I don't know who thought it was a good idea to change this into the circle cutout we have. I'll see if I can't do something. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

5 minutes' work and the problem is no more. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting a point[edit]

Sorry to complicate things but I wish to query a change made for Gerda regarding the use of the term "music drama". David changed the lede to say the term was used by Wagner. However, when I took Bayreuth canon to FLC, I was specifically asked to remove the term based on what was said when following the link music drama. My reply contained the following "I've opted to remove the reference altogether. I've looked at Millington's article in Grove which talks about Wagner trying out "Festspiel" and "Handlung" and asking readers of his article Über die Benennung ‘Musikdrama’ to come up with suggestions." if someone wants to look at the sources.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, please, I didn't want "music drama" but a mentioning that Wagner himself did not see his later works as "operas". Peter, can you word that better in the lead? (Said before:) I also miss the term "Bühnenfestspiel" in the article, and "Götterdämmerung" in the biography. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• How about "poetic dramas", as at the the Encyclopedia Britannica? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As explained in the article, in the header paragraph to the Operas section, and sourced (notes 139 and 140) these operas are referred to by many commentators as 'music dramas', despite Wagner's reservations. I don't think we need to introduce further contenders such as 'poetic dramas' (which is a complete novelty to me, and is by no means a standard descriptor for these works).--Smerus (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted summary of what needs to be done[edit]

I am trying to assess what, from the welter of comment above, is really germane to the assessment of the article as FA. I am aware there needs to be checking of one or two citations, and as already stated I will not be in a position to do this for a week or two, as I am 2000 miles away from my library and sources.

I have dealt with the issues of wording raised by Graham Colm and Ian Holm/GabeMcC. My approach to GabeMc's other comments on the prose of myself and others is expressed in varous comments above; I have in fact gone through every one of his points and in the cases where I felt clarity could indeed be improved I have done my best to remedy the text.

I do not believe, pace the comments of some editors, that there are any factual or source issues presently in debate. If there are, can someone please highlight them, because there may in fact be some snowed under somewhere. Interestingly the factual error re Geyer's death which GabeMc claims to have found was in fact discovered by me in responding to an issue which GabeMc had made about the structure of the sentence, not its content. As regards missing notable data, setting aside the rather comical claim about the award of a minor Prussian order, I think there are two points that need consideration.

One is the homoerotic element in Ludwig's obsession with Wagner. I think overall that this should be mentioned, and carefully sourced, as Wagner certainly exploited it (without reciprocating it), and this gives an insight into one aspect of W's character. I would rather wait until I have my sources before including it myself, but of course any other editor with good sources is welcome to do so.

The other is the issue of 'contemporary criticism', in the sense of 20th/21st century comment. I was slightly bemused by the rather optimisitic comment of one editor that this could perhaps be summarised in two or three paragraphs. I am also bemused by the tenor of comments which suggest that commentators on Wagner must be 'for' or 'against' him. I don't in fact know of any musical commentator of repute who suggests that Wagner's music is worthless or should be ignored - again, please let me know of any such if you find them. Of course there is plenty of anti-Wagnerian political comment and this is covered in the article. Amongst 20th and 21st musical and policitical commentators on Wagner who are cited, by no means all of whom are dyed-in-the-blood Wagnerians, are Adorno, Grey, Weiner, Gutman, Deathridge, Mr. Walsh of Time magazine, and indeed myself. I absolutely agree that we could do with an article on 'Wagner reception' in WP, and I suspect it would be at least as long if not longer than the present one. My view is that the topic is best left to another article, rather than travestying it in an abbreviated form in what is supposed to be a biographical article, or, even worse, swamping the main article with an attempt at a full coverage.

It would be a great help I think to myself and other editors if comments on this page could be limited to issues relating to the FA status of the article; there are of course many fora where extraneous points of principle can be raised.

Thanks to all of you (including GabeMc) for your interest.--Smerus (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Smerus, for all your fine work on an important subject. Per your comment: "I am also bemused by the tenor of comments which suggest that commentators on Wagner must be 'for' or 'against' him." I'm not sure what you are talking about here, as I never attempted to "go there". Who IYO is pushing that POV? Perhaps the article's construction implies this, as there is a sub-section titled: "Opponents and supporters", in "Influence and legacy", where a sub-section titled: "Critical commentary" could easily be included, or perhaps it should replace "Opponents and supporters". That writers were critical of his work at the time is notable, its not an issue of "spliting" IMO, whereby you are either for him or against him. All innovators faced resistance, but that is not meant to imply that you either love or hate Wagner with no objective middle ground. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• On missing notable datums. - How about mentioning his sisters as an early musical influence? Or that his teachers thought Wagner did not show any musical aptitude, or that he was imprisoned for debt in 1840 (unless this is incorrect, but no one will address the point). I think its notable that Wagner "prophesied the disappearance of opera". Wagner returned to Germany in 1861, yet the article implies it was 1862. RE: "Dutchman and Tannhäuser", why the mix of English and German titles? There remains unresolved the issue of a possible copyvio regarding File:Photo of Gustav Mahler by Moritz Nähr 01.jpg, which appears to be PD in the US only and not in its country of origin. For consistency, you should mention that The Fairies was based on a story by Carlo Gozzi. Are "musical director" and "conductor" synonymous? Britannica says he was a conductor at Magdeburg, but perhaps the two terms are interchangeable. Its notable to Wagner's bio that at Leipzig he was an adjunct with inferior privileges as he had not completed his preparatory schooling. You mention that "Rienzi was staged to considerable acclaim on 20 October.", but not that "The next year The Flying Dutchman ... was less successful, since the audience expected a work in the French-Italian tradition similar to Rienzi and was puzzled by the innovative way the new opera integrated the music with the dramatic content." This second point speaks to the resistance Wagner suffered for his innovations, something I think the article is currently lacking. For a similar reason, a point explicating that Wagner's "proposals would have taken control of the opera away from the court and created a national theatre whose productions would be chosen by a union of dramatists and composers" would further explicate his difficult position as a musical innovator. Why no mention of his "long-cherished plan to win renown in Paris"? There remain several "scare quotes" and unattributed quotes: e.g., "In Das Rheingold, with its "relentlessly talky 'realism' [and] the absence of lyrical 'numbers'" and "'the rewriting of some recent Wagnerian history'". There are also a few redundancies that need to be rectified. E.g., "In Bayreuth: "Friedrich Nietzsche ... was bitterly disappointed by what he saw as Wagner's pandering to increasingly exclusivist German nationalism; his breach with Wagner began at this time.[116]" In "Influence on literature, philosophy and the visual arts": "Nietzsche broke with Wagner following the first Bayreuth Festival, believing that Wagner's final phase represented a pandering to Christian pieties and a surrender to the new German Reich." These two points are nearly identicle and they are redundant in the article. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Smerus, regarding your above comment: "My view is that [critical commentary] is best left to another article". Why then does that sentiment not apply to praise? The article currently contains the following positive comments: "a diaphanous score of unearthly beauty and refinement".[26], "[Wagner's] protean abundance meant that he could inspire the use of literary motif in many a novel employing interior monologue; ... the Symbolists saw him as a mystic hierophant; the Decadents found many a frisson in his work.[204], "his influence was so unmistakable and overwhelming", "A thoroughgoing synthesis of poetry and music is achieved without any notable sacrifice in musical expression", "Barry Millington describes Meistersinger as 'a rich, perceptive music drama widely admired for its warm humanity';[159], "Weinlig was so impressed with Wagner's musical ability that he refused any payment for his lessons", "W. H. Auden once called Wagner 'perhaps the greatest genius that ever lived',[209]. So why no critical commentary in light of the numerous instances of glorification that are currently in the article? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's closing comments – I am promoting this candidate because I am satisfied that the FA criteria have been met. There are some outstanding issues, but these can be resolved on the article's Talk Page post promotion. I apologise to reviewer GabeMc for closing when some comments remain unanswered (here). This FAC has received support from reviewers, with solid credentials, which cannot be ignored and in my judgement a consensus to promote has been reached. I thank nominator and all the reviewers for taking part in our FA process. No further edits should be made to this page, please continue the discussion at the article's talk. Graham Colm (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.