Talk:String Quartet in A major (Bliss)

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 Yoninah (talk) 10:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

String Quartet in A major (Bliss)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Arthur Bliss

• ... that the String Quartet in A major was composed in 1913 while Arthur Bliss (pictured) was an undergraduate but like his other pre-war chamber music, was suppressed and not revived until the 1990s?

• Reviewed: All the Ways

Created by Graham1973 (talk). Nominated by Cwmhiraeth (talk) at 06:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC).

• — Several sentences and an entire paragraph lack citations. Second sentence in lede, pertaining to the hook, is not cited. Also, anything summarized in the lede should be covered in the body of text. i.e. The word "suppressed" occurs in the lede, but the body of text only mentions "withdrawn", making it a bit unclear that this is the "suppressed" referred to in the lede. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, some citations seem to be in the middle of the sentence rather than at the end, and I could move those, but we really need @Graham1973: to deal with the uncited paragraph, and whether "suppressed" is the best word to use. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Gwillhickers and Cwmhiraeth: Graham hasn't edited in over a month. Would you be fine with marking this for closure if the issues cannot be addressed? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Having looked further at the article, the sources are largely online, but I am not going to attempt to improve the referencing. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

The sources check out, but there may be an issue with Sam Ellis' thesis, concerning whether it was published by a reputable publisher, per reliable source eligibility. Recently I was involved with such an issue regarding one of my DYK nominations. I've seen many sources used to pass a DYK nomination that seemed less reliable, but depending on the reviewer, this source may pose issues. We'll need more opinions on that note. Sorry I can't be of any further help at this time. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I've started a discussion over at WP:RSN regarding the thesis part. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

The source in question here is a Doctoral Thesis, and such sources were deemed somewhat reliable in this RSN discussion. There still may be issues with its publishing, however. Good luck. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I have just made a comment at WP:RSN, also quoting the same earlier discussion as Narutolovehinata5 does here. I would consider the PhD thesis reliable - however, I note in checking the references to the thesis that it actually says "He composed a String Quartet in A major in about 1913, his final year at Cambridge. ... The first public performance of the quartet was given on 9 June 1914 at Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge: it can be safely classified, therefore, as a student work," [my emphasis]. The hook above leaves out "about", and just says "in 1913".

More to the point, it seems to me, is whether the reference for the "withdrawal" or the "suppression" of the work is reliable? It comes from a review of a 2019 performance in Seen and Heard International, which states that the information is based on the programme notes. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I have left Graham one final message inviting him to return to the nomination. If there is no response in a week, the nomination will be marked for closure. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• Graham hasn't been able to return to the nomination despite several pings and talk page messages, and some issues that have been raised remain unaddressed. Nomination is now marked for closure as unsuccessful. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:30, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• ALT1 ... that the String Quartet in A major was composed around 1913 while Arthur Bliss (pictured) was an undergraduate, but like his other pre-war chamber music, was suppressed and not revived until the 1990s?

I have added ALT1 which includes the word "around" and there are two citations for the "suppressed" and "revived" hook facts, so I'm not sure what the problem is. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Rebecca raised concerns about the reliability of the source used for the "suppressed" and "revived" facts, since they apparently were ultimately sourced to the programme notes. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

One of the sources mentioned the programme notes, but the other wrote in greater detail and did not, as well as providing an explanation for why he thought the work had been suppressed. If I were reviewing this article, I would consider the hook sourcing adequate. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Narutolovehinata5 and Cwmhiraeth, at the time I made that comment, there was only one source for the the "suppressed" and "revived" facts. There are now two, and I agree that the other is more detailed. While both, however, use the word "withdrawn", the Anderson source does not say that it was "suppressed". ALT1 is just over 200 characters, so if this is going to go further, why not leave out "suppressed and" and just say that it wasn't revived until the 90s? RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

That seems a good option. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• It seems that we do have agreement on a possible hook now, but no full review has been done yet.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: The issue about PhD theses as sources was resolved at WP:RSN, and other sources have been added. ALT0 is struck, ALT1 approved. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

There is a reason I did not respond. Because this whole thing seems to have been over my choice of wording, not any real issue with the article. The composer withdrew the work from performance and suppressed the previously published score. What could be more clearer. Graham1973 (talk) 13:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• Hi, I came by to promote this, but I have a question. The Quinn source clearly says that the composer suppressed the work and people asked his wife to release it. But the article keeps using the passive construction "was suppressed", without saying who suppressed it. I think this distinction is important and will also improve the hook. The first 2 paragraphs under "Instrumentation and structure" need citations per Rule D2. Yoninah (talk) 01:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• I have removed one uncited statement. The first paragraph under "Instrumentation and structure" is like the "Plot" section of a film article, and I don't think it needs a citation. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Yoninah Amended the article slightly, Cwmhiraeth, the timing was obtained from the available recordings. Graham1973 (talk) 10:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• You are welcome to put it back, but Yoninah is asking for a reference; I guess the record sleeve would do. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• I have to admit that I find it rather confusing about plots not needing references, but opera synopses and pieces of music apparently needing them. Apologies if I missed something that does need citing. (The timing could certainly be cited to recordings, and is in online catalogues, eg the Naxos one [1]). RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• Yoninah, the reason why "suppressed" was not included in the hook is that the source, a review of a performance in Seen and Heard, refers to the programme notes as the source of that information, and I wondered (above) how reliable they were as a source. Both the Ellis and Anderson sources say only "withdrew".

If the Quinn source is felt to be reliable enough, then a tweak to the hook might be:

• ALT2 ... that Arthur Bliss (pictured) composed the String Quartet in A major around 1913 while he was a student, but suppressed it, and it was not revived until his widow gave permission in the 1990s?

I would still prefer to be cautious and say, however:

• ALT2a ... that Arthur Bliss (pictured) composed the String Quartet in A major around 1913 while he was a student, but withdrew it, and it was not revived until his widow gave permission in the 1990s?

With new ALT hooks, we will need a new reviewer. I have added citations to the "Instrumentation and structure" section, though I'm still not clear what does and doesn't need citing in articles about works like operas, musical compositions, etc. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Some additional sources: "Bliss withdrew all but one of his works composed prior to 1918." [2], "...wrote two chamber works in 1916, which he then suppressed..." [3], "After World War I, he changed his style to something very modern and suppressed his earlier works." [4], and this 1949 PhD thesis says "destroyed" [5]. Based on the sources in the article and these additional ones, I'd say both ALT2 and ALT2a are approved. While I think both are adequately-sourced, "withdrew" is better sourced. – Levivich 04:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Leviv - Thanks for finding those additional references. Though I'm still not understanding why it is so important to provide citations to two specific words in a sentence.Graham1973 (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)