Wikipedia:Peer review/List of compositions by Gustav Mahler/archive1

List of compositions by Gustav Mahler

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I don't often do lists, but this is an exception. 2010 is Mahler's 150th anniversary year; I am developing the main biographical article with a view to its being TFA on 7 July, Mahler's birthday, but in honour of the occasion I am trying to get other Mahler articles up to scratch, too. This list strikes me as being useful and important. The aim is to make every line in the table as complete and self-contained as possible, without having to cross-reference; each line gives the name of a work, the year it was written, what kind of work it is, when and where it was first performed, and other relevant information of significance. I have used the system of grouping each line's references into a single column rather than dotting them around the table, which can be messy and disruptive. So please tell me how you think it looks, as a table. Many thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment

The table in my opinion has not been implemented well and is hard to use. There's no option to change the column the rows are sorted by and if you look at any other list of compositions page, you will notice the predominate way of sorting works is by genre first then chronology. This I believe is correct since even I struggle to put dates to Mahler's works and thus makes it hard to search for a particular work. Centy – reply• contribs – 23:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Take a look now: this is a version organised by genre. What you say about Wikipedia composition lists is true, but they generally relate to composers who wrote across a wide range of genres and had a much larger output than Mahler's. Mahler's relatively small output was basically in two genres - song and symphony - and even those he tended to mingle. Another point is that chronological presentation allows us to observe the distinct phases in Mahler's compositional life; the music he wrote in the 1880s and 1890s is significantly different from what he wrote in the 1900s. Finally, whatever Wikipedia's custom may be, I find that most printed composer biographies list their subjects' works chronologically.

This link takes you to the chronological version. (Note: Link no longer operating. Chronological version can be recovered if necessary.) Reviewers can consider which form of organisation is most useful. That does not of course preclude comments on other aspects of the table which I would be pleased to hear. Brianboulton (talk) 11:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks much better. Just to say there is no reason you cannot have two lists, one sorted by chronology and one by genre, where one is more detailed than the other. I mean take a look at List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven - his works are sorted by genre and then sorted again by opus number. Since we have no standard catalogue number for Mahler, chronology seems to work well in this role. I personally think your list sorted by genre can be the concise one of the two seeing as there is no need to repeat over and over again that his songs are songs with piano or orchestal accompaniment. Centy – reply• contribs – 14:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I have now prefaced the main list with a summary of compositions in chronological sequence. That I think should serve to meet all objections, but I would like to hear more opinions. I would also like to emphasise that the priority here is to make the list as useful as possible to readers of the Gustav Mahler biography article which is currently under development. I don't have immediate plans to submit this as a featured list candidate, though I'd like it to be of featured quality. Brianboulton (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The list seems to me to be excellent. I've corrected four typos (but please check them!): Ablösong to Ablösung; Leidleinerdacht to Leidlein erdacht; iridische Leben to irdische Leben; and Rheinlegendehen to Rheinlegendchen. My only other comment is that you have not been consistent in abbreviating the word "volume" - sometimes you write "Vol." and sometimes you omit the full stop. (Beckmesser, anyone?) - Tim riley (talk) 09:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up the typos, and for spotting the omitted full stops, Herr Merker. I'm still finding bits that need tweaking, so I'll keep looking. Brianboulton (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments

While we're talking about full stops, you're inconsitent about including them both in the comments column of the boxes and in the references. In footnote 4 you're inconsistent in not including a space petween the "p." and the page number.

On the content, it might be useful to make it more explicit that the Mahler scholar Deryck Cooke you mention on and use as a source is the same man who made the first performing version of the 10th Symphony. I also wonder whether it is better to say that the work existed in draft form with some movements unorchestrated, rather than simply saying it was incomplete. It certainly was more complete than Bruckner 9 or Elgar 3, let alone Schubert 8.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment Just a quick note - the link to Joseph Hellmesberger currently goes to a disambiguation page - assuming that you want it to go directly to the main article but not positive.