The quotation was in the main text, under "reception", - perhaps a bit misleading. I am not familiar with Tim's way of referencing, but named it, for clarity, rather than referencing the same page in the same book twice. --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
13:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)reply
I like the lead to be a subset of the main text, but if you feel it is improper to add the quote somewhere else in the article then let us have it here...
Sainsf<^>Feel at home03:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Looks like a misunderstanding. I agree. It's in both lead and history, same ref. We have to have refs in the lead for every quote, even if repeated later. --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
07:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
What is a liturgy?
The order of a church service, - let's link if it needs explanation, --GA
1888, under the composer's I don't think we need comma here
reworded without --GA
Text
(the Dies Irae, only its part Pie Jesu. The bracket does not seem to end.
good catch ;) --GA
but changed substantially the text "but substantially changed"?
yes
Does the whole section have no source?
well, it's what you see when you compare the score to the liturgical Requiem text and see the differences, - Tim will know. I guess we better add some kind of score as a ref. --GA
No sources at all for this? Citations need not be added everywhere, but if added at the beginning it should ensure verifiability.
see just above --GA
Sorry to intrude. I found this decent source I might share: Mr Chang-Won Park; Professor Douglas J. Davies (28 June 2013).
Emotion, Identity and Death: Mortality Across Disciplines. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. pp. 192–.
ISBN978-1-4094-8179-9. [Chapter 14 "De morte transire ad vitam? Emotion and Identity in Nineteenth-Century Requiem Compositions" written by Wolfgang Marx pp. 189-204. In pages 192-194 he talks about the patterns used by the composer. In p. 195 it is explained what they share in common.
Triplecaña (
talk)
09:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)reply
I added it to the bibliography and used it once, rather generally. Unfortunately, I can't see pages 192-193. If there's something specifically sourced on them,
Triplecaña, please feel free to name the reference and double it. --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
13:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)reply
I looked closer: it's excellent but in a detail about inner parts in the orchestra. I doubt that I woud include that detail even in a FA. I think it's good to link to it but would hesitate to mention Faurè as a forerunner of
minimal music in the text. --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
07:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Back to the original question: the section is something like a plot section in a book: sourced by the book itself. Perhaps we can use one score and mention the page numbers in that score? (But I don't think that would be done for a book.) --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
13:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)reply
That's a good comparison, Gerda. My personal view is that plots of books, operas, plays etc should have detailed citations, but I am heavily outvoted on this point at FAC, PR etc. The prevailing view is that it's OK to describe the plot (and here the score) by reference to what it is, without the need to cite secondary sources. Tim riley talk19:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)reply
I think a painting, a book, a score, they speak for themselves, without someone secondary having to repeat that. I am reluctant to give page numbers, though, because people have different editions. I think the headers should suffice to find the place. --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
20:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)reply
having been composed eleven years earlier as a baritone solo Check that numbers equal to or greater than 10 are in digits, though it is not an absolute rule.
No fear! There is absolutely no reason to replace "eleven" with "11" (or ninety with 90 come to that.) I have taken a dozen (twelve) or more articles to FA with numbers greater than nine as words rather than digits. Tim riley talk19:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)reply
For Bach works, we link violin, - on the other hand, we should avoid a sea of blue. Where can we meet? You will know what's difficult for you, better than I could guess. --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
12:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)reply
As far as I can see we have linked any uncommon term (and a few common ones, in my opinion - I think we all tend to link far too much, to the extent that the reader can't see the wood for the trees).
Are there no other views on the composition other than Fauré's?
later or Tim --GA
The heading of the section is inappropriate. We could easily dig out critics' comments about the piece, though as the Requiem seems universally popular it would be exceedingly difficult to find hostile criticism of it, and the result would be a rather one-sided section. In my view Fauré's comment should be moved to the History section.
I'm sure Gerda will concur that we are grateful for your careful attention to detail and your collaborative approach to this review. Thank you, Tim riley talk08:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Just saw Wadewitz's page. What a grave loss! But the loving messages at her talk page did prove this saying wrong: "What happens when a Wikipedian dies? He or she just doesn't show up to edit anymore. Does anybody notice? Does anybody really even care?"
Sainsf<^>Feel at home09:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The quotation was in the main text, under "reception", - perhaps a bit misleading. I am not familiar with Tim's way of referencing, but named it, for clarity, rather than referencing the same page in the same book twice. --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
13:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)reply
I like the lead to be a subset of the main text, but if you feel it is improper to add the quote somewhere else in the article then let us have it here...
Sainsf<^>Feel at home03:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Looks like a misunderstanding. I agree. It's in both lead and history, same ref. We have to have refs in the lead for every quote, even if repeated later. --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
07:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
What is a liturgy?
The order of a church service, - let's link if it needs explanation, --GA
1888, under the composer's I don't think we need comma here
reworded without --GA
Text
(the Dies Irae, only its part Pie Jesu. The bracket does not seem to end.
good catch ;) --GA
but changed substantially the text "but substantially changed"?
yes
Does the whole section have no source?
well, it's what you see when you compare the score to the liturgical Requiem text and see the differences, - Tim will know. I guess we better add some kind of score as a ref. --GA
No sources at all for this? Citations need not be added everywhere, but if added at the beginning it should ensure verifiability.
see just above --GA
Sorry to intrude. I found this decent source I might share: Mr Chang-Won Park; Professor Douglas J. Davies (28 June 2013).
Emotion, Identity and Death: Mortality Across Disciplines. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. pp. 192–.
ISBN978-1-4094-8179-9. [Chapter 14 "De morte transire ad vitam? Emotion and Identity in Nineteenth-Century Requiem Compositions" written by Wolfgang Marx pp. 189-204. In pages 192-194 he talks about the patterns used by the composer. In p. 195 it is explained what they share in common.
Triplecaña (
talk)
09:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)reply
I added it to the bibliography and used it once, rather generally. Unfortunately, I can't see pages 192-193. If there's something specifically sourced on them,
Triplecaña, please feel free to name the reference and double it. --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
13:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)reply
I looked closer: it's excellent but in a detail about inner parts in the orchestra. I doubt that I woud include that detail even in a FA. I think it's good to link to it but would hesitate to mention Faurè as a forerunner of
minimal music in the text. --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
07:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Back to the original question: the section is something like a plot section in a book: sourced by the book itself. Perhaps we can use one score and mention the page numbers in that score? (But I don't think that would be done for a book.) --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
13:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)reply
That's a good comparison, Gerda. My personal view is that plots of books, operas, plays etc should have detailed citations, but I am heavily outvoted on this point at FAC, PR etc. The prevailing view is that it's OK to describe the plot (and here the score) by reference to what it is, without the need to cite secondary sources. Tim riley talk19:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)reply
I think a painting, a book, a score, they speak for themselves, without someone secondary having to repeat that. I am reluctant to give page numbers, though, because people have different editions. I think the headers should suffice to find the place. --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
20:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)reply
having been composed eleven years earlier as a baritone solo Check that numbers equal to or greater than 10 are in digits, though it is not an absolute rule.
No fear! There is absolutely no reason to replace "eleven" with "11" (or ninety with 90 come to that.) I have taken a dozen (twelve) or more articles to FA with numbers greater than nine as words rather than digits. Tim riley talk19:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)reply
For Bach works, we link violin, - on the other hand, we should avoid a sea of blue. Where can we meet? You will know what's difficult for you, better than I could guess. --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
12:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)reply
As far as I can see we have linked any uncommon term (and a few common ones, in my opinion - I think we all tend to link far too much, to the extent that the reader can't see the wood for the trees).
Are there no other views on the composition other than Fauré's?
later or Tim --GA
The heading of the section is inappropriate. We could easily dig out critics' comments about the piece, though as the Requiem seems universally popular it would be exceedingly difficult to find hostile criticism of it, and the result would be a rather one-sided section. In my view Fauré's comment should be moved to the History section.
I'm sure Gerda will concur that we are grateful for your careful attention to detail and your collaborative approach to this review. Thank you, Tim riley talk08:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Just saw Wadewitz's page. What a grave loss! But the loving messages at her talk page did prove this saying wrong: "What happens when a Wikipedian dies? He or she just doesn't show up to edit anymore. Does anybody notice? Does anybody really even care?"
Sainsf<^>Feel at home09:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply