Talk:Thomas Beecham

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Thomas Beecham article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Thomas Beecham is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 25, 2011.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 3, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
February 7, 2011	Peer review	Reviewed
April 6, 2011	Peer review	Reviewed
April 16, 2011	Featured article candidate	Promoted
Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Musicians / Peerage and Baronetage FA‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (assessed as Low-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

England FA‑class Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Classical music

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

University of Oxford FA‑class Low‑importance

	University of Oxford portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

/Archive 1- 2006-2009 discussions

Top pic

I pressed the wrong button and reversed the latest contributor's swap of the 1910 photo and the Emu caricature, and then hastily reverted to the status quo ante. But on reflection I think the Emu pic is better at the top. Views gratefully received. - Tim riley (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's have the Emu one at the top. Rothorpe (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel strongly, but I thought an actual photo should be first, with drawings, etc. later. Maybe there's a guideline on it. I'm not sure. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, larger picture better. Rothorpe (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. - Tim riley (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quinlan and tour

Removed para as peripheral, but, naturally happy to withdraw if a majority of others demur. - Tim riley (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Error in template

The template at the top of this page has 'cleanup' as a verb. This is incorrect and needs to be changed. But I don't know how. Rothorpe (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American recordings

This section threatened to expand disproportionately. Beecham's recorded legacy was principally with the LPO and RPO. I have pruned accordingly, but further trimming of the still rather lengthy American recording para would be advantageous, I think. Views invited on this. - Tim riley (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this question is stale, considering your recent improvements to the article, Tim, but I trimmed this paragraph a little bit more, just now. Feel free to revert if you think I have over-trimmed it. All the best. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Tim riley (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last sentence of 1910-1920

I simplified the sentence and added the "sol" cite. Please check this and make sure you agree - if not, please amend. The sentence previously implied that Beecham stopped conducting because his personal financial affairs had deteriorated, but the next section seems clear that it was because he had to deal with his father's estate. A case could be made that you do not need this sentence at all, as the facts will be entirely repeated in the next section. We don't usually have this type of "transition" sentence that pre-views the next section, even though other types of expository writing prefer them... In any case, kindly review. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need a segue here, because I think the Bedford Estate section needs to remain intact, and therefore from 1920 we have got to go back to 1914 to begin the Bedford section. I've tightened up the segue sentence. Tim riley (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Looks good. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sons

There seems to be some uncertainty about how many sons he had by Utica and who was the heir - the Baronetcy is currently in abeyance. 89.168.80.36 (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]