# Talk:The Wood Nymph

Hello, fellow Sibelian and welcome to the wonderful world of the Sibelius tone poems! I am sure we are of one mind: the 13 Sibelius examples in this form represent, along with his seven symphonies and the violin concerto, the height of his orchestral powers. As such, I have taken the liberty over the last year of giving some of these tone poems (namely, The Wood Nymph and The Oceanides) the expanded treatment I think they deserve. 
As part of this expansion project, I have added infoboxes onto each of the tone poem pages (save for Finlandia and  Luonnotar and two that don't yet exist, The Dryad and Pan and Echo) to assist our readers in having the most important information about each piece at their fingertips. I feel that standardization of infobox information and form is something we should strive to maintain among these pieces, and as such, I suggest that any changes be agreed to by the community. If you're interested, I have the following opinions:

Let's keep the picture of Sibelius the same for all his compositions, so as to create the feel of 'articles in a series'
Let's have the opening title be the name in English (unless the native title is more famous, e.g., En saga)
Let's include 'native name' or 'English name' below the picture if the piece goes by more than one name
Let's have the form (e.g., tone poem) appear up-top next to the composer's name
Let's include the average duration
Let's have the caption under the image of Sibelius be "The composer in 1913"
Let's keep the dates of composition/revision (important for some pieces, e.g., the Fifth Symphony, consistent with List of compositions by Jean Sibelius
Let's have each infobox include information on 'movements', even if it is only one; this provides standardization among pieces.
Okay, thanks for reading! If you are so inclined to add the infobox to the seven symphonies (or the four tone poems mentioned above) or some of his incidental music, please be my guest. My focus, for now, is on the tone poems.
Sgvrfjs (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: I have included this message on the talk pages of each of the existing tone poems that have infoboxes.

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Wood Nymph/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Concertmusic (talk · contribs) 20:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Apparently Akseli Gallen-Kallela illustrated Skogsrået: https://books.google.com/books?id=929lNk1fqXoC&pg=PA202 . if a free image of this could be found, it would be an excellent addition to the article. NPalgan2 (talk) 08:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I just came across this article and was impressed by the quality of the work already here, mostly done by Sgvrfjs. I've made some edits and tried to address the points raised by Concertmusic and Triplecaña. See my notes at Talk:The_Wood_Nymph/GA1. I'm interested in finishing the GA process and seeing how to take this to FA status maybe. NPalgan2 (talk) 09:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

NPalgan2, the GA1 review is long-since closed, and really shouldn't have been posted to. In any event, your new nomination will be treated as a completely separate process—not a revival but its own thing—and will eventually be picked up by a reviewer and a new review page created by the reviewer at that time. Please be aware that this may take quite some time, as there are nearly 400 other nominated articles awaiting a reviewer. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi  Sgvrfjs, I noticed that TWN is listed as 1894 in this article and the list of compositions. However, I can't find RSs that say it was finished by the end of the year... just wanted to check before changing it to 1894 and 1895. NPalgan2 (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Just looked at the liner notes to the 2006 Vanska. 1894-1895 is what they use. Not sure why I didn't have that before. I can check Tawaststjerna later. Sgvrfjs (talk) 05:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Wood Nymph/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 00:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

A few oddities should probably be addressed:

The cello piece given in the third movement, though the accidentals do push it into C# major territory, is technically written in a key signature of either E major or C# minor. This should be explained.
 Not done Sibelius used that key signature in the score and its quoted thus in 2ndry sources - maybe because it's fiddly to keep writing out all the sharps of C# major all the time. I considered adding the string harmonics but the midi file would be much less clear then currently. I don't think it's sufficiently unusual or important to note in article. NPalgan2 (talk) 03:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@NPalgan2: It throws you when you're expecting C# major, though, and that's not the key signature shown. It makes it ambiguous as to whether the whole section is notated that way, or if the theme was quoted during a temporary shift to another harmony. I'd probably add the harmonies, by the wayy, if only because the first thing I did was play it out, and the effect is not very clear from the melody alone. At the moment, though, I'm leaning pass. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 Done see main article. NPalgan2 (talk) 06:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
There are numerous Harv errors being flagged up in the references. I know they're often quite fiddly, it appears to just be that.   Spent a few minutes fixing this for you..
Thanks very much! NPalgan2 (talk) 03:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

AGFing on the references covering the material, however the bit at the end of the lead about the solo piano and melodrama arrangements is sort of covered later in the article, but not exactly. Maybe add a cite to that (and make explicit in the lead that the solo piano arrangement is only of the finale.)
 Done On further consideration, I decided to remove the piano arrangement from the lead, it's not sufficiently important and is as you say slightly confusing.NPalgan2 (talk) 04:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd revise the second paragraph of the lead a little bit for flow - it's a bit choppy at the moment, and given the high quality of the writing in the rest of the article, it stands out. It's not really a blocker for GA, but that will hit you at FAC. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I think that's all the major issues. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Adam, Thanks for taking on the review and especially for dealing with the references. NPalgan2 (talk) 03:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
No worries. A couple more notes, but I'll be honest: It's basically passed in my eyes already.  Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I think the harmonies do a lot to show the third section is firmly in the C# major camp. I would still suggest copyediting the second paragraph of the lead, Never mind: You were actively doing that but...  Pass. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Adam Cuerden, Thanks for your suggestions and passing the article! I'm sorry that I've been editing while you review, I've never done a GA review before and was expecting to sit in a queue for months! As you see I've recast the second paragraph of the lead. Thanks again and let me know if you have any ideas for bringing it to FA level. Thanks again, NPalgan2 (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, you can easily sit in the queue for months. I have a GAR that's five months old - but I'm rather a classical music geek..
I'm not sure what more FAC would need. The piece has been fairly intermittently important, perhaps the best thing might be to add in some more detail about critical reaction to the 1936 performance, and - depending on sources covering it - things like comparing the adaptations to the main work. Unless you're going to spin them out into their own articles, at least the melodrama should probably get more discussion, particularly its performance history, and how it differs from the main work. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt, Tim riley, Ipigott, Sgvrfjs,  and Brianboulton: Fellow Sibelians, for those of you who don't know me, I recently came across The Wood Nymph and was impressed by the work Sgvrfjs had put into it and struck by the stalled GA nomination. I made some more edits and I am pleased to say that the article has just passed to GA status. I would greatly appreciate if you could cast an eye over the article now as I believe it is close to FA level. Some issues:

I can't find much RS information about the other op. 15 iterations, not sure that it exists.
Also, it is worth completing discography for the other iterations or just mention the most notable?
I did a rough an ready translation of the poem using my German, google translate and the previous copyvio-ing version, but I think Sgvrfjs could help with polishing this.
Best, NPalgan2 (talk) 09:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, and your effort. Will look (especially at the German), but not right now. Sadly Brianboulton can't help, and Tim riley is still in retirement. Wish he'd come back to content work. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
@NPalgan2: You've been doing a great job on touching up the impressive work by Sgvrfjs. I'm glad to see the article has now reached GA status. I've improved the translation of the last verse of the poem but perhaps I need to go through the whole thing. Google is not good for poetry, certainly not when archaic terms are used. I'll try to spend a bit more time on it later today.--Ipigott (talk) 12:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
By 'other Op. 15 iterations' do you mean the melodrama, piano excerpt and the song (incidentally, catalog number JS 171)? I would check the liner notes for the original CD releases of these if you haven't (NOT the Sibelius Edition releases). They *should* be available on eClassical.com. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Those are all mentioned in the article. I've checked the liner notes, but nothing interesting. Thanks to Ipigott for improving the Swedish. Sorry to hear about Brianboulton, I was recently looking at the Lt. Kije article and hadn't known he was ill. NPalgan2 (talk) 14:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I've now completed the translation of all four sections. It's not a work of art but faithfully reproduces the original which I think is what is needed here. Maybe someday I'll try to produce something a little more poetic!--Ipigott (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks all for your help; I've obviously had to take a step back as I attend to other things. I can probably help out later this month (Dec. 20s), but not sooner. I will say, however, that I'm a bit confused why a new translation of the poem was needed. The one I had used was from either Goss or the liner notes to one of the Vanska recording. I can check to see, but it would seem to me that we should use whatever is most associated with the recordings. Sgvrfjs (talk) 05:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Surely it's a copyright violation? The translation would've been done in 1996. NPalgan2 (talk) 05:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
NPalgan2 I've tried to overcome the copyvio problem by correcting the mistranslations, working from the original Swedish. There were a considerable number of errors in the GA version. But I now have an additional problem in that the introductions to the four segments contain snippets from the former version of the poem. I've altered those in the intro to the first segment but stopped there. I cannot access the sources quoted but I would be surprised if the experts cited misunderstood the poem. As you appear to have access to these sources, could you (or perhaps Sgvrfjs) check them out. To satisfy Sgvrfjs, it might be useful to include a note explaining that there are at least two published English translations of the poem.
I've also redlinked some of the Finnish wikilinks as I think we need to cover these people in English. Hardly any English-speakers can read Finnish. I can probably do the bios myself over the next few days. Would it be useful to include a section on recent performances and their reception? (See [2], [3]) Once these issues have been handled, I think we could go for FA. We'll no doubt receive a number of recommendations for further work once we do so.--Ipigott (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Ipigott. The original English translation was from the liner notes of Vanska.  The snippets from the poem quoted in the article proper were all directly inserted by sgvrfjs from the translation rather than being quotations of quotations in the books cited, so they can just mirror whatever the translation we provide in the article ends up being. I don't know if different English translation have been provided in different liner notes of the 4 different recordings, but I don't think it's notable enough to be worth mentioning. I would say that the current translation may be accurate but it is a bit jarring for an English reader, so before we go for FA I'll make some minor edits. I linked to the Finnish wiki bio links as google translate is so good nowadays but obviously english articles are even better. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I understand now. Thanks for the explanation, and the hard work. Sorry I'm not more involved. Sgvrfjs (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
"Throughout his career, Sibelius was troubled with creative 'blocks' and bouts of depression. This led him to commit score to the flames when he felt unable to revise them to the level he demanded. This was the fate most notoriously of the Symphony No. 8, but also of many works from the 1880s and 1890s." This seems such a commonplace to say about Sibelius, but I cant find an RS that says precisely this for a cite... NPalgan2 (talk) 06:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)