Wikipedia:Peer review/Agrippina (opera)/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Agrippina (opera)

Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The 250th anniversary of Handel's death is on the 14th of April, and it would be desireable if we could get something by Handel up to FA before then, so it can mainpage. A one-week peer review seems an important first step to preparing for this. Please offer any and all advice.

Thanks, Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • Normal order is "see also" notes, references, further reading, external links. Sometimes you can swtich references and notes, but right now your sections are in a weird order.
  • Alphabetize your references so it's easier to figure out what you are referring to in the short notes.
    • Mostly done. I wasn't quite sure where to put Encyuclopedia Britannica, so I just shoved it at the end, with a gap. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 01:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: What is here looks good, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • There are no FAs on individual operas I could find. Is the order of topics set by MOS or the WikiProject Opera guidelines? I would think having the plot section earlier might make more sense (if you describe where the arias come and who the characters are first, then discussing them later flows better).
    • I've rearranged it. As far as I'm aware the Wikiproject has no really set order. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For novels and movies, 900 words is often cited as a maximim Plot section length - this seems to be longer / perhaps too detailed
  • Per WP:MOS#Images, images should face the text, so File:Margherita Durastanti.jpg should be left justified to face the text, not look away from it as it does now
  • Articles on works of art that are FA always seem to have a Reception or Critical reception section - there is a bit of this spread throughout the article, but this lack seems to me to be the biggest obstacle for passing FAC.
  • In the plot section I would mention each aria or named song that is referred to elsewhere in the article so the reader knows the context of each aria / piece. This is already done nicely in a few places, such as Otho is dumbfounded, and in turn appeals to Agrippina, Poppea, and Nero for support, but they all scorn him, plunging him into despair and the lament "Voi che udite".
    • The trouble is that there's so many arias. I think we've got most of the important ones, though. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would move things not dirctly about the plot to other sections, such as He renounces love in favour of political ambition in the virtuosic aria "Come nubbe che fugge dal vento", of which the A section is borrowed from Piacere's "Come nube che fugge col vento" in his earlier oratorio, Il trionfo del tempo.[11]
    • I'm going to chance this as it is for the moment, simply because there's so much to say about borrowings that it's easier to spread it out a little. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The plot section could be tightened, for example jut the first sentence Agrippina, wife of Claudius, has received news that her husband has died at sea. could be Agrippina has received news that her husband Claudius has died at sea. or perhaps Agrippina has received news that her husband, the Emperor Claudius, has died at sea.
  • In the Roles table, would it help to put "Unknown" for the conductor and Juno?
  • In the Subsequent performance history section, how do modern performances deal with a castrato Nero role?
    • It's one of those things that varies, as far as I'm aware. cross-cast it, use a boy soprano... all sorts of things you can do. Might even be able to get away with a tenor, given the lack of significant part-writing. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 06:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first thing I noticed is that all three acts of the #Synopsis section are entirely plain text (except for the footnotes). Is this intentional? It does give the article a conspicuously odd appearance. — CharlotteWebb 16:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • More that most of it was linked already. But there's a reasonable case for re-linking, so I've done it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second look This is much, much improved. Here are my nitpicks

  • In the lead would it make sense to also say Agrippine is Claudius' wife? Or would you then have to clarify Nero is not Claudius' child?
    • It would make an overcomplicated opening to the lead to explain the relationships here, and as they are clarified in the first line of the plot synopsis, perhaps we could leave things as they are?
      • Fine by me
  • Suggest changing It was premiered in Venice, in or around December 1709, ... to something like It was premiered in Venice, on or around 26 December 1709, ... since the date is used later (even if it is not certain)
    • Yes, that makes sense.
  • There are no links at all in the second and third paragraphs of the lead - it looks odd. Could the opera houses in New York and London be linked in the third paragraph? innovative stagings in New York in 2002 and London in 2007. Or the house in Venice it premiered in for the second? How about List of operas by Handel as a link in the second paragraph for when Handel's operas fell out of fashion in the mid 18th century?
I've linked to the three opera houses. I'm not sure about the other you suggest – a bit contrived , perhaps? Anyway, I've left it for the moment, will reconsider if you think it really important.
Just an idea for a link - not required
  • Problems with (Based on Gloria Staffieri's summary, translated by George Hall for the 1997 John Eliot Gardiner Gardiner recording with the English Baroque Soloists.[7]) Why use parantheses (brackets)? Isn't this a sentence fragment "The following synopsis is based on ..."? Does his name really have two Gardiners? Can any of the artists / names be linked?
The sentence has been corrected, parentheses removed, and links created for Gardiner (minus the stutter) and the English Baroque Group.
  • Perhaps change "he" (or a "him") to Nero somewhere in She summons him and commands him to go and give grain to the people in order to buy popular support. After he leaves to carry out her instructions, ...
I've changed the first "him" to "Nero".
  • I said this before, but I would kepp the Synopsis limited to just the plot and names of arias as needed. This is done well in the first and second acts, but the third act has two asides that seem out of place here, but could easily fit in the composition section: Originally Handel had the two sing a duet, "No, no, ch'io non apprezzo", but he was dissatisfied with the music and replaced the duet with the two solo arias before the first performance.[8] could come after The opera was revised significantly before and possibly during its run.[26] and the part I already pointed out about a borrowed melody could fit in the second paragraph of Composition.
These suggestions have now been acted on.
  • If I count right, there are 5 arias mentioned in the Music section - I would make sure these are placed in context by mentioning the in Synopsis, so the interested reader can go back and look up where in the plot these occur.
This has been done.
  • Could the statue captions be more detailed?
I will work on this

Otherwise looks good to me, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you indeed, for returning to the review with these suggestions, almost all of which are now reflected in the article. Brianboulton (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Voceditenore (talk · contribs)

Thanks for your help. File:Nero and Agrippina relief Aphrodisias.jpg is listed for deletion. The second of the two Claudius images looks more promising. Brianboulton (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image investigations:

  • File:Haendel.jpg — I have the feeling that this is where the project has become the source of all information on the web for this image. This image was uploaded in April 2005, with the statement that it was created by Denner in 1733. However, in several searches on Google, I have failed to find any information that predates the upload to correlate with the given information. I have not seen this picture in any Handel biographies or art books.I have replace
The following sources are ignored because they are put up after the image has been uploaded here
Why not use the portrait that is undeniably drawn by Denner (see the NPG gallery), or any that has its source stated on the haendel.haendelhaus.de site? Of course, if anyone can provide or verify the true information for this image, that would be great!
  • File:Woman childstatue3.jpg — this is not a free picture. Vroma has specifically stated its pictures are only for non-commercial use, which disqualifies it for Commons/Wikipedia free image policies.
  • File:Emperor Claudius.jpg — this is a suspicious photo. Assuming the information is correct, it is possible the author of this early 20th century photo plate might not have been dead for more than 70 years ago. Without knowing who the author is, we cannot assume otherwise. However, I suspect the veracity of the provided information; this picture is taken in a professional setting. The bust is originally placed in such a setting.[3][4] I believe the museum will move it to a special dark room for professional photo shots, such as this Barbara McManus shot in 2003,[5] which seems to have very similar settings to the picture here (just taken from another angle). It is likely the photo here is a McManus shot that has most likely been once put on a website and now taken away (hence, no longer showing up on search engines); if so, it is a copy violation.
  • File:Margherita Durastanti.jpg needs the Haendel.it page from where it is located. Is it truly drawn by Antonio Maria Zanetti?
Jappalang (talk) 10:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your very prompt attention to my request.
  • I have replaced the lead image File:Haendel.jpg withe the Denner portrait from the NPG, per your suggestion
  • I have removed File:Woman childstatue3.jpg
  • I have removed File:Emperor Claudius.jpg, and replaced it with File:Claudius Uffizi.jpg, as suggested by the above reviewer. This image looks OK to me but I would appreciate your view on it.
  • I have put information about how to find File:Margherita Durastanti.jpg in the image source details. The Haendel.it site is a bit of a nightmare to navigate, especially if your Italian is as rudimentary as mine, but I found it. As to Zanetti's authorship, the cartoon is included in the gallery of his drawings here.
  • I'd like to think that resolves the image issues. Again, thank you for your very helpful review. Brianboulton (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem, those actions resolved the image issues in this article. Jappalang (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kleinzach (talk · contribs)

  • Synopsis: I read: "The following synopsis is based on Gloria Staffieri's summary, translated by George Hall for the 1997 John Eliot Gardiner recording with the English Baroque Soloists." So there is no original synopsis - only one indirectly based on the original! I assume the libretto is readily available, provided with recordings etc. and I think we should summarize it directly — rather than paraphrase someone else's synopsis which, unlike the original, will be in copyright. Also that would enable the arias to be integrated into the synopsis. (It's long been a recommendation of the Opera Project that arias are included in the synopsis, rather than listed separately where they are less useful to the reader.)
    • I trust Moreschi reworked the synopsis heavily and added in new content from the original - he's usually quite good about that sort of thing.
    • As for including arias, that is rather impractical in this case, as there are 45, not counting variants, a number far too large to list all of them, and I think there's a good case that with these highly structured works, a list of numbers is useful. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • For the record, that was meant to read "As for including all the arias." I agree we should include some, just think that listing 45 is likely to severely decrease readability, and not including all of them means that we still need the exhaustive list. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can confirm that the synopsis as written is a good paraphrase of the original summary (which I have), and would not offend any rule relating to plagiarism. However, Kleinzach is right to point out that our paraphrase of a translated version of someone else's summary is, well, indirect to say the least. I will replace it with a synopsis based on the libretto, and will re-introduce references to key arias (they were there once but were taken out by someone). Of course, with 45 arias only a few will be mentioned, and I believe the exhaustive list at the end should remain, for reference purposes. Brianboulton (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough. I would hope that more than 'a few' arias will be mentioned in the synopsis as they are (obviously) key to following the opera, but I take the point about the usefulness of the 'exhaustive list'. --Kleinzach 00:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have rewritten the synopsis on the basis of the libretto, and have managed to include references to about 15 of the arias, which I think is reasonable. Brianboulton (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unorthodox structure: This article follows it's own unique order of sections with roles and synopsis preceding context, background, analysis, performance history, and music, contrary to the usual opera article order which is lead, performance history, context, background, analysis, roles, synopsis. While I don't think all opera titles should invariably follow the same structure, I do think the order here is counter-intuitive and should be rearranged.
    • This was in direct response to complaints about the Opera project structure which was formerly used in this article. This pattern was done in order to make the analysis make sense: before, it was necessary to discuss plot elements that had not yet been put in the context of the opera as a whole, and that is a problem with all opera articles that put synopsis last once they reach a certain stage of development. No other opera article has passed, or, as far as I'm aware, even been up for featured article, save a few from the separate Gilbert and Sullivan project, Thespis (opera) and Trial by Jury. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please point me to all and any criticisms of the Opera project structure. In the past four years I've never encountered them. All opera encyclopedias follow a structure — for the convenience of readers! (Can I make my ritual plea for these otherwise unrepresented participants to be considered?) As for opera FAs: Porgy and Bess was one, however it's true that the Opera Project has never been very enthusiastic about the FA process. --Kleinzach 00:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not think that the order used is "counter-intuitive", i.e. contrary to common sense. I see no iron logic behind the Opera project's preferred structure, and as Shoemaker states, there have been complaints about it. Thespis (opera) is the nearest we have at present to an opera featured article, and the structure used in Agrippina closely follows this. However, I will look again at this structure to see to what extent some compromise with the Opera project's preferred format is possible. Brianboulton (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks. As I said before, each opera is different so we don't need to be inflexible about this. However it's important to contextualize the work first, to explain when it was created and under what circumstances and with what intentions (in this case the sections: 'Context and analysis' and 'Music'). The more technical information should come later, including the list of roles with the list of role creators, and the detailed synopsis - information which will be of less interest to the average reader. --Kleinzach 00:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, I meant the opera structure as applied here was criticised above, in this peer review. It doesn't necessarily mean that the opera project structure is inherently bad for general use, but when you reach this level, it's usually best to work with the material you have, and not worry too much about predefined structures. In this case, a large part of the discussion referred back to the plot - something I'd expect would happen in most larger opera articles - so it makes a lot more sense to have the synopsis much earlier. I'm sorry, I'm a little ill, and it shows. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Butting in - I was one of the people who criticized the former structure. I peer review a fair number of articles and it seems that articles on novels and plays and films (all of which tell mostly fictional stories, as do operas) all ahve the plot / synopsis section pretty early in the article, not very last. I agree that it makes sense to summarize the plot before discussing it in any detail. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I understand. The solution suggested (and in some cases implemented) before was to include a short summary in the lead so the reader would have a basic idea of the content of the work, and then go to the detailed synopsis as necessary later, probably via the TOC. (BTW roles/synopsis generally come in the centre, rather than last, in opera articles. Various sections usually follow them.) --Kleinzach 04:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have transferred the synopsis & roles sections to the centre of the article. I think the current order of sections after the lead (Background, composition, synopsis and roles, reception, subsequent performance history and musical analysis) is logical and defensible—as are other chosen orders; it should not be a case of a set order suits all cases. I hope the differing opinions will be satisfied with this compromise. Brianboulton (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selected recordings: It's normal to give fuller details. See the guideline. --Kleinzach 05:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, it shouldn't be too much of a problem to extend these details. Brianboulton (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks good now. Only one thing — if I remember correctly — we are not using the Amazon ASIN numbers as we don't assume readers will buy from Amazon in particular. --Kleinzach 04:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Agrippina_(opera)/archive2&oldid=1078817052"