Clara Schumann

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because…

... Clara Schumann's bicentenary promped us to expand and improve her article, which is the fruit of many users' efforts, recently Chuckstreet and Jmar67, and received a detailed and helpful GA review by Reaper Eternal. She was a great woman, who made a living for her family of a famous husband (who died early) and eight children, by concert tours through Europe with famous colleagues, as one of the perhaps 5 best pianists of her time, also composing and later teaching, + romance and romantic music. This peer review is meant to find out if "she" may be worthy of FA quality. Thank you for participating, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SusunW

Much better. SusunW (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Farang Rak Tham

Obviously written with passion and dedication. Here are a few suggestions, for what it's worth:

Good luck with it!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC) Expanded.22:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vami_IV

Generalis
Life
Family life
Thank you for good comments! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

  • "She changed ... She composed ..." several similar constructions in first and second paragraphs very close together.
    I tried, and expanded the lead which I felt was too short anyway, please check again and feel free to improve the wording. --GA
  • "on a weekly basis " maybe "once a week" or "each week"?
    taken --GA
  • "The tour marked the transition from a child prodigy to a young woman performer.[6]" I would say "her transition" rather than "the transition".
    taken --GA
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this British English? If so, possibly "Mr." and "Dr." should be "Mr" and "Dr".
    I didn't find "Mr" any more. "Dr." is part of the conservatory's name, and I removed the one other. --GA
  • "In 1877 she performed Beethoven's Fifth Piano Concerto with conductor Woldemar Bargiel (her half-brother by her mother's second marriage) in Berlin and had tremendous success.[30][34]" I would move "in Berlin" to after "Concerto" because it rather gets lost after the lengthy parenthetical.
    taken, and reprased --GA
  • Several sentences need citations.
    Sigh. That may take some time. Most citations were there (or not) before I ever looked. Then Chuckstreet helped tremendously, unifying them all to harvard citations, finding online pages. He would probably know, but was driven away over a silly dispute, edit warring over a few blank lines ... Nocturnes (Debussy). I didn't like the extra lines, but really wouldn't care much if it's a main contributor's wish. We are so often told that the wishes of the main contributors need to be respected, and that every attempt to not do so is disruptive ... --GA
  • "In 1883, she performed Beethoven's Choral Fantasy with the newly-formed Berlin Philharmonic, and was enthusiastically celebrated, although she was playing with an injured hand in great pain, from a fall on a staircase the previous day.[46]" I would change "from a fall" to "having fallen".
    taken --GA
  • "She was the only woman in the faculty.[48] " In American English, it would be "on the faculty". Don't know what it is elsewhere.
    taken --GA
  • "She was buried in Bonn at Alter Friedhof with her husband, per her own wish.[50]" I might consider "beside" or "next to" instead of "with" (that is, "with her husband".)
    both taken, one in the lead, the other later --GA
  • "As a flourishing composer's wife, she was limited in her own explorations.[52]" I'm not quite clear what this means.
    sorry, nor do I - this article has a long history - I guess it's meant to say that her composing would have had more of a chance had she been married to a baker or a lawyer, not someone great in the same field, - any chance of rewording that? --GA
  • The paragraph on the May Uprising seems a bit muddled. Is one event (rescue of children) being described or two?
    I ffel the same and will have to look, - it's also "inherited". --GA
  • " In the last year of her life, she left several sketches for piano preludes," Left? Left unfinished or something else?
    a sketch is a draft, implying "unfinished", no? --GA
  • "memorize" If this is BritEng, then this should be "memorise"
    taken, still duplication to "from memory" following --GA
  • You use "program" several times and "programme" once.
    We - different authors - use ... - I know the British use "programme" but it's one of the words I don't like too much, changing --GA
That's it for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for looking, - I was out all day, and need to expand an article for DYK, - so will probably look tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I got to it now, and found your comments very helpful. I have some questions:
  • Should we say some bits about her father? The mother has no link (but I plan to change that), and he has, but still ...
  • How do you feel about the sequence, ... family life so late - after her husband's death? ... all relationship to Joachim and Brahms so early? I am a bit torn between telling something chronologically and focusing on themes.
  • Should we say a bit about their living in Leipzig and Düsseldorf, or leave it all to his article?
Wehwalt, feel free to answer these questions or not ;) - My next objective is polishing a Bach Christmas cantata. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather have seen more info on the family life near the Robert Schumann part. I would have to see what was written about the parents. I would consider her article independent of anything said in his.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for supporting my thoughts, but will take some time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Oulfis

I'm not sure if you're still looking for feedback for this review, but there are a few places of non-English titles in the article which it would be nice to have translated. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 23:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oulfis, thank you very much for reading and commenting, - I am sorry that I did not notice it until now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for replying and taking a look! When you pointed out the links, that addressed my concerns for most of them -- I don't really know much about opera, so I've never heard of Là ci darem la mano, but if I wanted to know what the title meant, it makes sense to go read that article. The comment I was making about Wagner's was just pointing out that the the titles didn't have translations, no comment on the paragraph itself. Since they are short titles and famous in German (I have heard of Tannhäuser!) I thought they probably were fine untranslated but since I was making a list of all non-translated non-English I wanted to be thorough. Most of the things I noted had links, so they're fine, and I agree with you that Revue et Gazette Musicale is clear in context as a magazine and the specific title doesn't matter.
But I think I still have two exceptions, the ones which you say are "translated in the prose" and don't have links: "Wiecks pianistische Erziehung zum schönen Anschlag und zum singenden Ton" and "Zwölf Lieder auf F. Rückerts Liebesfrühling". Because I don't know German, I can't tell that they are translated in the prose, so it feels like I am missing information. And they're both very long!
I went and looked at the article again, and thanks to the information you provided here, I was able to make some edits which I think make them a little easier to follow for people like me who don't know German or much music. So, I think it's all good now. Please feel free to keep changing them around if they seem awkward to you now, though! ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 21:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining and copy-editing. I promise to eventually write the article on the joint composition. For the Wieck, I have the opposite problem, being German: I am not even sure about the best translation of "schöner Anschlag", - obviously not "beautiful" - first meaning of "schön". I am sure that the book has been translated, but am quite busy so not in the mood to search. Again, thank you! Perhaps you can find a way to link Là ci darem la mano, but it should not be from the title. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sainsf

Hi Gerda, this looks like a really nice article with appreciable FA potential. I haven't really looked at the prose yet, I am sure able reviewers with greater familiarity with her field above have made relevant comments on it. Some things I did notice though, if you are planning to put it up for FAC:

  • Keep the author names in one format.. Abraham, Gerald E. H. and Jensen, Eric Frederick differ in which parts of the names are abbreviated.
    yes --GA
  • britannica.com, interlude.hk are not really necessary I think if you anyway mention the publishers
    There were a few days when we had error messages "cite web requires website" - this may be the result. --GA
  • Foreign language titles should have translated titles
    I was told the opposite before. --GA
  • Try to mention maximum details and do so consistently in all citations of the same type. Books should consistently have ISBNs, journal articles should have identifiers like DOI. Publishers should have locations (consistently just city names or city names followed by country names). Don't forget page ranges. These are just a few things though.
    agree in principle, but older books just don't have isbn numbers, etc. --GA
  • To polish things, try maintaining either 10 or 13 digit ISBNs consistently, preferably hyphenated.
    yes

I will look at the rest of the article later, mainly to check prose quality and other things that can be optimized before an FAC. Good luck! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:47, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll look in a few days. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:09, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
... which is now, replies above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerda, sorry I have been pretty late in my response. The references look beautifully sorted now and much attention has been paid to consistency. Just a few checks about missing details though, for instance Avins, Styra (1997) lacks location parameter as does Clive, Peter (2006). I have not checked all but I am sure there are a few so please take a look. Apart from that, I read through the prose mainly to look at the presentation and not exactly the subject matter, which I am not much aware of. The prose is overall concise and engaging. Here are my comments on a few things I noticed: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 19:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Epicgenius

Hi Gerda. I've taken a quick look. This is well deserving of the good article rating, but I noticed that there might be a few things to improve in the prose. Just from the lead, we have sentences that may be picked upon at FAC:

Style: The "death" subsection is pretty short. Some reviewers frown upon such short sections, while others may not.

noted, to do something about it before FAC --GA

References: I skipped to the end and also saw a stray footnote: Litzmann Bio (German) 1908. I don't think you need the ref syntax for Original German ed. 3 Vols. see [1]. You can probably put ((harvnb)) instead. epicgenius (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

will check, but have some turn-of-year priorities right now. --GA
There is a reference that references another reference. It creates an extra footnote between "Authority control" and "Categories". I tried to fix it but I don't know how. Wait, the "Citations" section is before the "Cited sources" section, I think if they're swapped, it'll fix the problem, I'll try that. LisztianEndeavors (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that fixed it. I moved some other appendix-type sections around also, because it made more sense. "Notes" should go after everything else to avoid another stray footnote, in case a Reference has a (foot)Note. And "External links" looked a bit lost there by itself near the end, so I put it under "Further reading" (as a subsection) because they're related sections. LisztianEndeavors (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I may post more comments later. epicgenius (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, - I'll get to it in a few days. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
... which was now. Thank you for your interest and good comments! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: Sorry, I totally forgot about this. I will leave some comments later. epicgenius (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk

The parts you don't think fit could just be removed. But some of the unsourced sentences seem important. FunkMonk (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I put too many citations in that section, but if you think it needs more, go for it. :) I got all the information from other Wikipedia articles (mostly War of the Romantics), and simply copied their citations. Anything not cited was not on the other Wikipedia page either. However, most if not all of the material I added is in the Walker book on the controversy (the war of the romantics). You could probably look there and add the page number citation wherever you think it needs it. But does every paragraph have to end with a citation? Why can't there be citations in the middle of paragraphs and sentences instead? LisztianEndeavors (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with citations in the middle, as long as the end has a citation, or that end is regarded as unreferenced. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the way I wrote that section was sort of biased toward Clara Schumann and didn't exactly paint Liszt in the best of light. In reality Liszt took the high road and always showed respect toward Clara, the lack of the reverse from the bitter and spiteful Clara I didn't mention. After all, this is an article on Clara Schumann, not on Liszt, so I tried to be nice to her, though some things just need to be said, you know? Not hidden under the rug just because they're controversial and possibly damaging. LisztianEndeavors (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know much about the subject, but in general, it is not a very good idea to simply copy text from one article to another without checking the sources thoroughly first; you have to know whether the sources used support the statements in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wasn't about to check up on that other article to see how accurate it is, that would be too much work, re-checking somebody else's sources. I've read Walker's book, so I know about the subject anyway. I just saw some comments on this article about how Clara Schumann didn't like Liszt or Wagner and boycotted their music, but didn't adequately explain WHY. The explanation was already on another article which stated that Clara Schumann was basically the leader who started the war, so I put that information in this article. I don't think it's my place to question somebody else's referencing, and I don't even have the time for that kind of research. Besides, I think we have to TRUST articles that ARE referenced on Wikipedia. LisztianEndeavors (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"I wasn't about to check up on that other article to see how accurate it is, that would be too much work, re-checking somebody else's sources." But that is exactly what is required of you when you transfer such information. Since this hadn't been done, I'd support its removal, you can't just leave others to do the job for you, "re-checking somebody else's sources" as you put it. FunkMonk (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "required" at all. Where in the Wikipedia rules do you see anything that supports what you're saying? Cite your Wikipedia sources. BTW, I notice you prefaced everything you said when you started this with "I don't know much about the subject...", which would lead any reader to discount anything you say after that... especially when you talk about rules and requirements (to do something) and things "you HAVE to know" (before you do something), as you have been putting it, and you don't cite your source for those rules... LisztianEndeavors (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@LisztianEndeavors: Just saw this discussion. I think FunkMonk means he is not aware of the general field this article deals with, but the Wikipedia editing policies stay the same which he is aware of as an editor. To put it clearly, WP:BURDEN asks the editor who adds the content to take the responsibility of verifying the info they add and cite the source properly with page numbers and all. Now I don't know how well it has been done in the other article, but in a possible FA candidate all info needs to be sourced and verified in detail. So it is indeed required of you to check the sources before adding material from anywhere (even from another Wiki article; I don't see the need to trust anything an article says unless the source is reliable and properly accounts for it), more so for a future FAC. And inline citations are required to verify the material preceding it; WP:CITEDENSE explains well how to place them. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 19:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that is pretty much what I meant. Wikipedia rule number one is WP:verifiability; if you don't verify the text you add by checking the sources, you fail the basic criterion for information inclusion. FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sainsf: or whoever. For the last time, I didn't write any material, I just shuffled and copy/pasted material around on Wikipedia. I don't have to cite anything. If you see something uncited, go complain to the person who wrote it, not me! I'm just editing what other people wrote, not writing new material after doing research with sources, got it? I see something lacking in explanation in one paragraph, so I find the explanation on another page about the subject Clara Schumann, so I put it here in the paragraph that's lacking. Very simple. If you don't like it and prefer it unexplained or ambiguous then put it back the way it was, why don't you. Just erase everything, you're all so petulant about it; nothing better to do than complain? I'm not your punching bag! And for what I do to help an article, I do what I can, I don't HAVE to do anything. Leave me out of it. I try to help and you complain to me about someone else's doing.
If you think any article needs cited sources, then add a "cn" tag to the text. Somebody will eventually fix it. Or try to find a source yourself, if you have the time and are so inclined. Deleting material just because it is missing a citation for the end of one paragraph is stupid and wasteful; that's what the cn tag ("citation needed") is for. I don't have time. Stop complaining. I'm sorry I ever came into this forum. Why isn't this on the talk page for Clara Schumann anyway? That's where this discussion belongs. What the hell is Peer review and why are we talking in an Archived page? No don't answer that, I don't care anymore, I've got other things to do. Bye now.
(P.S. I don't know what I'm doing on an article about a third-rate nobody composer like Clara Schumann, like I care what she said about a first-rate forward-thinking innovater like Franz Liszt, gotta set the record straight I guess. I for one THANK whoever wrote that War of the Romantics article, it needed to be said at what an awful annoying person C.S. was and how backward and stifling her thinking was. I guess I'm out of place here too, on an old archived comment page instead of the C.S. article talk page; how the hell did I get lost HERE? Nevermind, bye.)
(P.P.S. Oh I see: @Gerda Arendt:pinged me here, that's how I got here. Nevermind, bye.) LisztianEndeavors (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining your view, and I won't ping because you said you have better things to do. - You are right regarding sourcing in general, but not in featured article (FA) which this may be some day. It's not now, so I let the added info stand, and hope that some day - when I'm not happily in bed on vacation and got a ping first thing to deal with - to check out the sources. In general, if you add content - to whatever - it's your responsibility to make sure the sources support the content, or who else? Happy editing! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Category