Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Symphony No. 2 (Brian)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 23:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Symphony No. 2 (Brian)

(
)
Engraving of Götz von Berlichingen
Engraving of Götz von Berlichingen
  • Source: "the four movements are associated in the composer's mind with various aspects of the character of Götz. The first, his resolution; the second, his domestic piety and love of his children; the third, the smell of battle; and the fourth, his death".

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.60219/page/n145/mode/2up

"While denying that Symphony No. 2 had any detailed programme, Brian at first drew attention to the earliest of Goethe's dramas, Götz von Berlichingen (1771-73), as a primary inspiration."

https://www.naxos.com/MainSite/BlurbsReviews/?itemcode=8.570506&catnum=570506&filetype=AboutThisRecording&language=English

"According to musicologist Malcolm MacDonald, Brian’s reasons for denying this connection and for wishing his work to be viewed as 'pure music' were based on 'his anxiety lest those works with a known inspiration in literature be vulnerable to facile misinterpretation from people who look no further in music than for a programme. Brian never wrote programme music in that sense'.

MacDonald, Malcolm (1974). The Symphonies of Havergal Brian: Symphonies 1-12. Vol. 1. London: Kahn and Averill. ISBN 9780900707285.
Improved to Good Article status by NeoGaze (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

NeoGaze (talk) 10:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC).

  • @NeoGaze: Not reviewing but having an image of Brian diverts attention from the bolded article, which is no good per WP:DYKDIVERT. Yeshivish613 (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
@Yeshivish613: The image is used in the article, but I can see your point, so I substituted it with an engraving of the knight (also used in the article). It probably fits better with the first and third hooks. For the second hook no picture would be really necessary. NeoGaze (talk) 08:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

 Reviewing... Flibirigit (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - ?
  • Interesting: Yes
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: None required.

Overall: The article achieved GA status on March 26, and was nominated for DYK on the same day. Length is adequate. Sourcing is good, but the first paragraph in the "Form" section is unclear as to its source. In the inspiration section, there is a lengthy quote by MacDonald, but only a few phrases are in quotation marks instead of the whole passage. This might work better as a blockquote to be clear on the source and that it is a quote, otherwise it infringes on plagiarism. The article appears neutral in tone. The proposed hooks ALT0 and ALT2 are interesting, but I cannot verify them. Where exactly are they cited in the article? ALT1 does not seem like it would be interesting to a broad audience, since the average will not know that 16 horns is unusual for a symphony. All images used in the article are in the public domain on the Commons. The nominated image is clear at a low resolution, used in the article, and enhances the hook. QPQ is not required for this nomination. Overall this will be an interesting nomination, but some concerns are outstanding. Flibirigit (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@Flibirigit: I solved the first two issues you have brought. Now on the sources, for ALT0 I will try to explain things better.
Reginald Nettel states that the symphony had a program, which is not explicity stated by Brian (see source 1), then he later denies that the symphony describes the character (see MacDonald, Malcolm (1974). The Symphonies of Havergal Brian: Symphonies 1-12. Vol. 1. London: Kahn and Averill. ISBN 9780900707285.) In a 1969 CBC Radio interview he contradicts himself by describing the symphony as the "the Götz von Berlichingen" and saying that the finale depicted the death of the character (see source 2). The composer's last comment on the subject describes that he had in mind "Man in his cosmic loneliness: ambition, loves, battles, death" (see: https://www.naxos.com/MainSite/BlurbsReviews/?itemcode=8.570506&catnum=570506&filetype=AboutThisRecording&language=English)
Here is another source for ALT2: https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/12/21/super-goethe/ NeoGaze (talk) 08:15, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
The response does not explain where exactly the hooks are cited in the article. In other words, point out which sentence(s) support the hook. Hooks must be easily verifiable as per WP:DYKCRIT. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 11:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
@Flibirigit: For Alt0:"However, he contradicted himself when he was interviewed by the CBC Radio in 1969, during which he referred to Symphony No. 2 as 'the Götz von Berlichingen'"
Alt2 hook doesn't appear in the article itself. If that is precisely the issue, then just ignore it for consideration. NeoGaze (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
I have struck ALT2 accordingly. I struggle to verify ALT0 due to dissimilarity of the words in the hook and the corresponding text. The link to Götz von Berlichingen (Goethe) appears only in a section hat note, so it cannot be verified by a citation. There is no mention of Goethe in the same paragraph as the sentence supporting the hook. The only mention of Geothe is the same section is in reference to Faust, which further confuses anyone trying to verify the hook. Easily verifiable hooks have similar words, in one or two setences. I also suggest removing the word "would". I have no idea what is meant by "Brian would go on to attempt to"; it is too wordy. Enyclopedias are written in active voice, not passive. I recommend WP:FEW and WP:INTOTHEWOULDS as guidance. Flibirigit (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
@Flibirigit: I will rephrase that last part. Perhaps should I also modify the hook to better reflect the source? NeoGaze (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
New hooks are always welcome. Simplifying the corresponding text in the article is a good idea. Flibirigit (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
@Flibirigit: In the end I decided to create two new hooks.
    • ALT3:... that British composer Havergal Brian described his Symphony No. 2 as "Man in his cosmic loneliness: ambition, loves, battles, death"? Source: MacDonald, Malcolm (1997). "Booklet notes for the Marco Polo Recording (Rereleased on Naxos)". Naxos Records. Retrieved 26 February 2025.
    • ALT4:... that according to Reginald Nettel, the four movements of Havergal Brian's Symphony No. 2 represent different aspects of German knight Götz von Berlichingen? (pictured) Source: Nettel, Reginald (1947). Ordeal by music: the strange experience of Havergal Brian. Oxford University Press. p. 123.
I have struck ALT0 for not being easily verifiable. I remain open to proposed variants of the hook. ALT3 is interesting, mentioned in the article, properly cited and verified. ALT4 appears to be supported by two consecutive sentences in the article. Both sentences will need a citation directly at the end as per WP:DYKHFC. Also, ALT4 will need to be amended to remove the name of a non-notable person. It could reworded as "the four movements of the symphony were described as" or some variant. We could proceed with approving ALT3, or wait for changes to approve ALT4, or consider other hooks. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 00:10, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
@Flibirigit: I further rewrote ALT4 to be supported by a single phrase from the source. I hope it is fine. NeoGaze (talk) 08:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Please note, that instead of overwriting a hook, a new hook and new number should be listed. In other words, preserve the old hook, and start a new hook so the conversation can be followed by anyone. I've restored ALT4, and number a new ALT5. Flibirigit (talk) 11:13, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
@Flibirigit: Apologies, I didn't know that. ALT4 should be struck too then too, and if everything else is alright, we can proceed with ALTs 3 and 5NeoGaze (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
I have struck ALT4 accordingly. Will review ALT5 later today. Flibirigit (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
I have also struck ALT5, since it states the opinion of Nettel as if it were an established fact. The wording omits a qualifier like "described as" which is essential. I will continue with the remaining hooks, but will revisit the nomination if other hooks are proposed. Flibirigit (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Approving ALT3 and ALT1. As per my review above, ALT3 is interesting, mentioned, cited, and verified. ALT1 might not be interesting to a broad audience, but I will leave it to discretion of the promoter. ALT1 is mentioned, cited, and verified. Flibirigit (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
@Flibirigit: Thank you very much!
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Symphony_No._2_(Brian)&oldid=1287090473"