Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

BITCHin the lead unless it contains quotations or other things that demand clarification for some reason, and the GA reviewers that looked at my articles were OK with this, as long as the lead was properly summarizing the article.)

• There are a few uncited paragraph ends in the first two sections of the bio.
• Early Vienna Years, Return to Opera, 1788-1790, all have some, and first para of 1791 too
• The entire Style subsection has three footnotes; one of which is of a quote. If it's all really based on just a few sources, that should probably be made explicit up front. If not, more cites (or language indicating whose analysis is being summarized) are needed.
• The Early biographers section is not footnoted at all. Opinion language (about the reliability of some of them) should specifically be cited.

Other things that would come up in GA:

• the presence of {{fact}} and similar tags will probably quick-fail a nomination
• images with fair-use/copyright issues will quick-fail. For this article, that should only be modern photos, not images of artwork.
• short paragraphs. There are few in the first sections of the bio; expand or combine.

I don't have any experience with the FA process, beyond reading some of the nomination discussions.

Hope this helps. -- Magic♪piano 19:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Magic. I'm pretty busy with other stuff for a while but will try to look at all of these items when I can (if others don't do it first). Opus33 (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Was Haydn Mozart's "mentor"?

Hello, If you Google the question you will find a fair number of web references saying that Haydn was Mozart's "mentor". However, I think that to use the term "mentor" you would have to show that Haydn actually gave Mozart advice and guidance, and I know of no factual basis for this claim. He wasn't around much in Vienna, he held Mozart in awe, and the two didn't meet before Mozart had already scored a huge success with Die Entführung aus dem Serail. AFAIK, they really were just friends, not a mentor-mentee pair. For some details on their relationship, see Haydn and Mozart.

So, in sum, I'd like to see a citation before we put the term "mentor" into the WP article.

Cheers, Opus33 (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

How to make the Table of Contents visible?

Hello, something that I hadn't anticipated when we earlier discussed the possibility of a lengthy intro section is this: the long intro makes the Contents invisible from the opening screen (what the reader sees on her screen, when first arriving at the article). I've tried to address this problem by adding a new header, "Article summary", at the top of the long summary section. (This has the further advantage that anyone who wanted to just plunge in to the article without reading a summary first would have this option made clear.) I know that putting a section heading over the intro (as I have just done) is not standard Wikipedia practice, but on the other hand it strikes me as the best way to solve this problem. Comments welcome. Opus33 (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• To remove a carefully-written introduction that fully accords with Wikipedia's style guides, on the trivial grounds that the whole table of contents cannot be seen at first sight, is peremptory to say the least. I attempted to establsh a consensus before posting, you have simply gone ahead. At the very least you could have contacted my talkpage and let me know what you had in mind. If you want this change to be carried out, please consult around, find out what others have to say, get some sort of approval rather than taking action of this kind. I am reverting your change until there is evidence of a consensus for your proposed change. Brianboulton (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

For heavens' sake, Brian, I did not remove your introduction. I only put a section title above it. Please take another look and you will see this. So the issue at hand is much more minor, I believe, than you were imagining. Opus33 (talk) 06:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I've made an attempt to solve this problem. Pls revert if you don't think it works. The tech stuff is at TOC. Best. --Kleinzach 01:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

My preferred option would be to leave the Croce image "right" and place the __TOC__ after the first paragraph, before "Mozart was born in …". That way, it looks more standard and the way it used to look while still pulling the TOC up into a visible position. (Note that editors can play with the settings and assess the appearance via "Preview".)Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Try it if you like, but I have a feeling it won't balance. --Kleinzach 01:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Michael, your change opens acres of empty white space. It looks very odd . . . Sorry, but I don't think it works. --Kleinzach 13:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

There is the same amount of white space visible to me (IE7) to the right of the TOC as there was in the established version. That could probably be reduced slightly (by one line of text) by sizing the Croce to 220px, which it was originally and which I forgot to reestablish. Even better, by moving the image to the end of the first paragraph, just befor the TOC, it would occupy most of the white space to the right of the TOC. Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

IMO the 'established version' didn't work very well - the first screen is OK, but no text flowing around the TOC. On the other hand "moving the image to the end of the first paragraph" looks even worse - two boxes out of position instead of one!. It would be better to have text flowing around the boxes as I suggest before [1] with maximum accessibility of information in the first screenful. --Kleinzach 02:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I reacted to appearance rather than reality. Long day, late in the evening, etc.... With a cool and rested mind this morning I will say, first, that I'd still prefer the lead not to be split. The problem with the Kleinzach solution, which I quite like, is that it is non-standard format, and it is likely that someone will come along and change it. Also, if at some time the article was reassessed for FA, it would no doubt have to be changed. With the smaller Croce, on my screen the top of the table of contents is visible in the normal format, i.e. image on right, table under lead. Would that not deal with the problem? Sorry, Opus, for my initial over-reaction, I think I'll go and play some Mozart. Brianboulton (talk) 08:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, missed this discussion. I think it works pretty well the way it is as of this writing (Michael was the last editor -- this version) -- the TOC is easily visible and is within the lead. To my eye it works in both Firefox and IE. Antandrus (talk) 15:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

What on earth has happened to this...?

Can I submit that the following is utterly nonsensical as it stands, and should either be re-written or deleted....

"One of the most recognizable features of Mozart's works is a sequence of harmonies or modes that usually leads to a cadence in the dominant or tonic key. This sequence is essentially borrowed from Baroque music's Phrygian style, especially J. S. Bach. But Mozart shifted the sequence so that the cadence ended on the stronger half, i.e., the first beat of the bar.[citation needed]" Pfistermeister (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Dunno. I wrote the style section long ago, but it's barely recognizable any more, and I sure didn't write that. A sequence of harmonies leading to a cadence in the dominant or tonic? You don't say! -- I took it out for you. Does anyone watching this page know what may have been intended? Antandrus (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Weird! Ta! Pfistermeister (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)