Wikipedia:Peer review/Rhinemaidens (Wagner)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rhinemaidens (Wagner)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd be pleased to receive any advice or comments as to how this article might be improved, in terms of prose, images, anything else. Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 11:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hi. I've re-read the article and the following thoughts have struck me
  • You report that their in-world origins are unclear beyond vaue references to a father, but they are the Rhinedaughters in German which does hint at an origin.
    • Yes, daughters of this unspecified father figure, but nothing else is revealed. Brianboulton (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Specified enough for Stewart Spencer to refere to them as "the river's nymphean daughters". Okay the River Rhine's personality and attributes as a deity aren't discussed, but he is the the Rhinemaiden's father.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you describe the Rhinemaidens' music, some musical illustration is appropriate. I have on CD two tracks recorded in Bayreuth in 1904 with piano accompaniament, but the sound quality is poor. However, discussion of the music would justify extracts from a more modern recording provided we keep to the rules about duration: and sound quality.
    • I am afraid I don't know the method or technology for musical illustrations, and would need to be told how to set this up. I have several modern recordings. Brianboulton (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Me neither. But someone over at WT:WPO has been uploading and hopefully would be able to help.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stylistically, I've noticed a tendency to glue two sentences together with "and" to make one when there isn't enough connection to really justify the merging.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll look at this.Brianboulton (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've been through and knocked out about half a dozen "ands", which has refereshed the prose considerably. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 21:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think for FA you need to expand on earlier similar figures in the medieval literature. Rackham is all very well, but too dominant in the pics here. This is a possibility, and a modern production pic might justify a FU rationale. Do none of the interpretive critics have more to add? If you already know the story there's not much added value frankly. Johnbod (talk) 01:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for these comments.
      • On the first point, User:Peter cohen has made some valuable recent additions to the text. Bearing in mind that all discussion of the Rhinemadiens' origins, and their relationships to other mythical figures, are conjectural, I feel there are limits to how far this expansion should be taken, but I will continue to look for appropriate material.
      • With regard to Rackham, I agree - more range and diversity required in the images. I can't actually find the Gutenberg one you suggest as a possible alternative, as your link takes me to a blank page. Can you indicate where it is? And would it be free to use?
        • So it does; I found it on a Google images search for "Rhinemaidens Bayreuth" I think. It should be free as it is C19. Johnbod (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've found two Gutenberg images which look worth using. Just checking there are no restrictions Brianboulton (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've now replaced two of the Rackhams with new images which certainly add variety. Any observations welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 10:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes, better now, though it's a pity we can't use anything more modern. Johnbod (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Copyright makes use of more recent images problematic. We are looking at the possibility of fair use on an image from the current ROH production. Brianboulton (talk) 10:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Despite their key role in initiating the drama the Rhinemaidens are, in theatrical terms, minor players and tend not to get the same level of critical attention as the more major characters. I am continuing to look for relevant material that doesn't merely duplicate what is already there.

Again, thank you for your interest. Brianboulton (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • Just a thought, but do you know how Shaw interpreted them in The Perfect Wagnerite? GBS may have been one-eyed in his desire to treat the Ring purely as political allegory, but his view is still important.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, but he scarcely mentions the Rhinemaidens. He refers to them as "three strange fairy-fishes", and has one characteristic barb, describing them as "thoughtless, elemental, only half real things, very much like modern young ladies" (written in 1883!) That's about it. I suppose we could work in his line for colour, but it doesn't really add much depth. Brianboulton (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've uploaded another piccy of the Bayreuth 1876 machinery but am going to let Brian decide how to order everything.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure about having two 1876 pics together, but where to relocate one of them is a bit of a problem. I could move the first one into Nature and attributes, if I got rid of Alberich stealing the gold (which doesn't really belong in this section). I think the 1876 "machines" pic is ideal for this final section. Any opinion/advice? Brianboulton (talk) 10:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I've got a bit carried away expanding that section, so there is now room for several production thumbnails. I've moved the picture of the singers down so t now illustrates how Rhinemaiden singers can be big names.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've also added a bit more on the oceanids and the daughters of Aegir as possible sources.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now upladed a picture of the current Keith Warner Covent Garden production. I'm still trying to make sense of the FU rationale. Anyone able to help? I've opened a thread at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Image:Covent_Garden_Rhinemaidens.jpg.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the name of the article Rhinemaidens (Wagner) and not just Rhinemaidens (currently a redirect to it)? --Skizzik talk 23:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • To avoid confusion with an older general article about water-nymphs, Nix, to which Rhinemaidens originally directed. The redirect has been changed to this, but my feeling is that people will still find the operatic reference useful. Perhaps it should be reconsidered? I don't know. Brianboulton (talk) 10:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you mean the main-template at the top of the article? If so I think it could be useful, but what have this to do with the name of the article? --Skizzik talk 10:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • This was discussed on the talk page a while back when it was changed from Wagner's Rhinemaidens or something like that. I think I was the only one to favour Rhinemaidens at the time. I still do.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          If Brian agrees with you I'd suggest moving; you may need admin assistance since you want to move over a redirect with history. Mike Christie (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've just looked at the discussion on the name last April. The reason I supported the Rhinemaidens (Wagner) option was because existing articles such as Brunnhilde, Alberich, Siegfried etc related not to the Ring character of that name, but to the original mythical figure. Any article specifically about the opera character would have to be specified in a form such as Brunnhilde (Wagner). I thought my title should be consistent with this form. In spite of this altruism I don't see a rush of Ring character articles. Also, there are no mythical figures on which the Rhinemaidens are based. So I'd agree to the namechange provided no one will be upset by it. I also think that the reference to Nix as a main article is now inapplicable and should go, Brianboulton (talk) 23:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie (talk)

  • I agree with Skizzik that Rhinemaidens ought to be this article; Rhinemaidens (Wagner) ought to link to it. "Rhinemaidens" did link to an article about the opera characters for some time, but was then changed to a redirect.
  • "Generally referred to" in the lead: there's not really a connection between the first and second halves of this sentence. I'd divide it into two.
  • Any reason why you link to Nibelunglied (and use that spelling throughout) when that's a redirect to Nibelungenlied?
    • Sheer oversight - someone pointed this out ages ago - now fixed to correct spelling throughout. Brianboulton (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pre-echoes": I know what you mean, but I think it would be better in this case to use the passive voice and say the story is echoed in Wagner, rather than Wagner is pre-echoed here.
  • In the paragraph on Greek myth, the introduction of Aeschylus isn't explained until the next sentence. You could avoid this by saying "Further possible sources lie in Greek mythology" (or "in Greek mythology and literature" if you don't want to refer to Aeschylus as mythology). Then you can the Hesperides and Aeschylus become natural continuations.
  • I suggest saying who Rudolf Sabor is when you mention his opinions; why does the reader care? Is he a biographer, a music critic, a literary critic, an academic specializing in Wagner?
    • As I added this... The author bio in the book referenced describes him as "a writer, lecturer and teacher whose books include The Real Wagner. In a long and varied musical career he has been Director of Music for Surrey, editor of the journal Music, an examiner for the Associated Board of Music and a regular reviewer at the Bayreuth Festival. He has lectured widely on Wagner, and in the 1970s and 80s he toured Britain and the continent with his one-man show, Wagner." I'm not sure how to summarise all that. We could resort to "one author" and just footnote the book.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, that's hard to summarize. I like your solution: "one author" and a footnote. Mike Christie (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same paragraph: I converted some hyphens to em dashes per WP:MOSDASH, but there are now rather too many. Might be best to rephrase to avoid them -- you have four in a couple of lines.
  • In the "Nature and attributes" section, I suggest cutting "yet elusive". It's not clear at that point what it means, and you cover it well enough a couple of sentences later with "not easy to pin down".
    • "Elusive" is how they are described in the source (Holman). I tried removing it, and I thought the prose didn't read so well. As it is, we have "composite" and "elusive" in the first sentence. The second sentence deals with the composite aspect and the third moves on to the elusiveness. My preference is to leave it as it is. Brianboulton (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not knowledgeable about opera, so feel free to ignore this comment if it doesn't make sense to you, but I wonder if it would be appropriate to have more focus on the musical aspects of the Rhinemaidens. There's a paragraph in "Nature and attributes" about Woglinde's initial song, but that's largely to explain how Wagner meant the elements of the song to characterize the maidens. There's a comment or two about the lament being well-known. Would it be appropriate to expand the "role" sections with a sentence or two on the musical specifics of the scene? Opera is a marriage of a dramatic and a musical performance; there's a lot about the dramatic side of the maidens but less about the music. Just a thought.
    • A timely thought. Before I read your comments I was thinking that something about the Rhinemaidens' contribution to the music of the Ring should be added. The lament is mentioned, but there are several important motifs associated with them. Over the next day or two I will prepare some material. Brianboulton (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have two sources that discuss the music that I haven't seen you mention: Roger North's essay in the ENO Guide which mentions things like the pentatonic nature of the Rhinemaiden's music and its relationship to other nature music in the Ring such as the woodbird's; and Cooke's audio commentary on the leitmotives which originally accompanied the Solti box set. If you want to know more about what either of these say, then let me know. However I've got some real work to do so may delay any response.
        • I have Cooke's audio commentary, not Roger North's essay. I've got material to work on, so I suggest I draft a section and we try to knock it into shape (this will take a few days). Brianboulton (talk) 17:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've mentioned sound files before. An ideal selection would include short extracts of:
        1. Woglinde's Weia Waga opening.
        2. One or other Rhinemaiden flirting with Alberich
        3. The song in praise of the Rhinegold
        4. The mocking laughter at Alberich and also the fear at the Rhinegold being taken
        5. The lament at the end of Rhinegold
        6. Frau Sonne music and how more developed Wagner's style is by GD
        7. Part of the orchestral ending of the Ring with the WeiaWaga music against Valhalla music on the brass and Glorification of Brunnhilde/Redemption through Love on the strings.
      • Obviously we'll have to be careful of Copyright rules. If we could have famous singers for the vocal bits, that would also be nice.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • This might be a touch ambitious, given my/our lack of knowledge of the technicalities involved. We will need the advice of someone who thoroughly understands the copyright position. Brianboulton (talk) 17:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure of the value of "not to be trifled with" in the sentence about their sorrow. How about cutting this to: "Their sorrow over the loss of the gold is heartfelt. When Loge ironically suggests ..."?
    • I have fixed this, though slightly differently ("deep and heartfelt") "Not to be trifled with" has gone. Brianboulton (talk) 22:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "ultimate survivors", ultimate could be interpreted as "at the end" or "paradigmatic". If you mean the latter, I don't really see an argument for that, though if your source supports it that's fine. If you mean the former, I think a different phrasing would work better as I was confused between the two meanings.
    • Having ummed and ahhd over this, I simply removed the phrase. It now reads "They are the only prominent characters..." etc. Brianboulton (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link to "Sól (Sun)" for "Sun-woman" isn't all that helpful, since that article doesn't mention Wagner's character. I'd suggest unlinking, and possibly inserting a quick parenthetical explanation of the character -- maybe in a footnote to avoid breaking up the flow.
    • In the German it's "Frau Sonne" - Mrs Sun or woman sun- I think the link is fair enough. Sun-Woman is just how the translator (William Mann?) chose to put things. It doesn't appear in the list of Wagner characters and is I think the only mention of the sun as a personage in the whole Ring - though Brunnhilde does go "hello Sun" (and assorted other things) when she wakes up from her magical sleep.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Fair enough; leave it in that case. Mike Christie (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From Wagner's initial 1876 production" -- does this mean "dating from" or "in"? I think you mean that it was clear right from the start that the maidens are human in form, so I'd make it "In Wagner's initial 1876 production it was established that ...".
  • Do we need Carl Brandt's dates of birth and death? I'd cut this to ".. Carl Brandt, the foremost ..."
    • I added that. I'm easy if you cut it.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll let it go and leave it to you and the other editors; it's a pretty minor point. Mike Christie (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would a link to fly system by useful from "fly"? It seems to me it's the same thing, but I can't be sure.
    • Yes, a decent link. "Fly" is simply a short form of flyspace or flyloft. I'll make the link. Brianboulton (talk) 22:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a dash inside the quote from Wolfgang which appears to be a hyphen. I believe the policy on quotes is to preserve the form of punctuation used in the original, but I doubt it was a hyphen. Personally I think it would be better to impose a consistent punctuation style within the quotes as will, since that's merely formatting, but that's not the current consensus.
    • Okay I've looked at the page in the Sabor book and I think it's an n- not an m-dash. Certainly our m-dash looks too long in preview.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a pity there are no pictures of any modern productions. I can understand there would be copyright difficulties, of course, but if you figure out a way to get a picture it would enhance the article.

That's everything I can see; I hope it's useful. Mike Christie (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, thank you for your comments, which we have acted upon (or will do). They have in my view greatly helped the article. Thank you, too, for the FU rationale; a modern picture will be a great addition. Brianboulton (talk) 22:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brian, Peter, a quick follow up note -- I noticed this site, which claims that Lilli Lehmann is in the middle of the picture -- you have her labelled as the left maiden. Do you know which is correct? Mike Christie (talk) 03:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just checked Peter's source for the pic - it doesn't mention Lehmann's position, so I've changed it to centre on the basis of Mike's specific information. Are you happy with that Peter? Brianboulton (talk) 09:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had assumed that the order that the Rhinemaidens were mentioned in the caption in Vol 1 of Cosima's diaries was the order in which the singers appeared in the photos. Evidently that is not the case. BTW, the Hoffmann sketch for scene 1 of Rheingold could be worth using.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:13, 6 October 2008 (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.
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.) 13:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Re above source. It has shown itself accurate in every spot check I have made on it. The one citation to it in the article is Hanna Schwarz's debut as Flosshilde in 1975. This incontestable fact could esily be cited to, for example, this, or to other sources, but I don't really see the point; Weber's list has proved its accuracy for me. Brianboulton (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but... to determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've checked on the origins and reputation of this source. The list is the work of Helmut Weber, who on the basis of an internet search seems to be generally active in the world of opera, including the on-line reviewing of opera DVDs. He has a personal website which is not informative. However, the list I have used is recommended by this, which I believe to be reputable. That endorsement in my view ought to qualify it for reliability, but perhaps you would opine? It's such an informative list that I would be sorrow to lose it. Brianboulton (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This would be one of those "Leave it out for other reviewers to decide for themselves" type things, I'm thinking. I'm very much on the fence about it. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • Err... shouldn't Das Rheingold and Gotterdammerung be italicised as titles of works? (Or is Wagner special that way?) (In the lead)
They should be italicised - now done.
  • As far as the prose, it flowed well for me, but I'm not a music expert.
  • Perhaps a bit more explanation in the text of some of the wikilinked terms, such as "fly" "jotunn".
"Fly" I've amended to "fly space", which with the link should do. A jotunn is a mythological Norse giant - but where is this in the article? I certainly didn't put it in, and it doesn't show up on my wordfinder. Big mystery.Brianboulton (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Origins section, third paragraph, last (or next to last) sentence. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Humble apologies - another editor inserted this. I forgot the umlaut in my wordsearch. Anyhow, I've added a word of explanation. Brianboulton (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only thing that didn't flow well for me was the first paragraph of Rhinemaidens on stage.. as it didn't feel connected well to the concept of the Rhinemaidens themselves. Perhaps if you explained if the RMs are one of the areas that are often innovated in? Or if they are an area where not much innovation has taken place? Also, were they innovated with outside the Bayreuth Festival before 1951?
Hmmm...This first para is to make the general point that while the Festival was in the hands of Cosima and Siegfried there was little innovation in any of Wagner's opera stagings. After 1951, when Wieland took over, and more especially after 1976, the situation changed. The subsequent paragraphs illustrate how both the early conservatism and later reforms impacted on the staging of the Rhinemaiden scenes. I don't think these scenes have suffered either more or less innovation than other parts of the Ring cycle, although since most of their action is underwater there could be said to be particular staging difficulties. I'll look at the prose again to see if any of these points could be made more clearly. Brianboulton (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've trimmed the prose and brought the emphasis in the first para back to the Rhinemaidens. Look & reads better. Brianboulton (talk) 13:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been going through some of my sources. Sabor mentions that Siegfried W oversaw a switch from backcloths to sets and from gas to electric lighting. He also discusses the premiere of Rheingold at Munich and says that it involved coloured smoke that RW adopted for Bayreuth. Unfortunately there is no indication whether coloured smoke was used in connection with the Rheinmaidens in either staging. Sabor mentions a number of other 19th century productions as "homage stagings" which did not challenge RW's approach. In terms of pre-1951 innovation, he mentions Adolphe Appia's 1924-5 staging at Basle. Sabor describes him as the "first true innovator". Only the first two operas were achieved before a "public outcry" from the "old Wagnerians" stopped progress. We do mention Appia as an influence on the New Bayreuth style but not his Basle staging. Sabor mentions that Appia's ideas were not taken up in his lifetime. The only other pre-1951 non-Bayreuth production Sabor mentions is Sergey Eisenstein's 1940 Moscow Valkyrie which "pointed the way to realizations of Wagner's works which connected them to the contemporary social scene". Eisenstein's production would not have included any Rheinmaiden scenes, and Sabor doesn't describe the details of Appia's Rhinemaiden scenes. There is enough shown in the background of a picture of 1930 Bayreuth Rhinemaidens being wired up to show that there was a set and not just a backcloth.
More perhaps could be made of the contrast between approaches and various long German words could be introduced. Wieland's 1951 production, Sabor says, was driven by Entrümpelung (elimination of the superfluous). Sabor mentions Hall being criticised for Konzeptlosigkeit (lack of concept) and Hall's reply that "it's [the Ring] strongly philosophical, strongly political, but oly after it's a myth. And I've tried to put on stage a myth." Jack Zimmermann in the "Season Companion" for Chicago Lyric Opera 2004-05 puts things quite nicely when he mentions "the thorny question for anyone planning a new Ring production: do you tell the story or do you interpret it?"
What I'm not sure is whether to add any of this. Brian has said that he thought the section had reached its optimal size. Also much of this is about Ring or Wagner production in general not about the Rhinemaidens. Thoughts?--Peter cohen (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you finding fresh material, but I would re-emphasise my view that, interesting though it is, this material properly belongs to a different article about "staging the Ring" or some such. Enough is said in the article, and enough examples given about staging the Rhinemaidens' scenes, to satisfy the "comprehensive" criterion, and I think any more will unbalance the article. Brianboulton (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For me, the new arrangement is much better and integrates the information much better. Not being a Wagnerite, it now makes more sense. (The only time I've ever paid attention to Wagner (outside hearing a performance) is when he's turned up in my reading on the Third Reich, so I was a complete outsider on this article!). Ealdgyth - Talk 18:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the rainbow bridge and alberich pics also by Rackham? When was the Ryder painting done?
I've acknowledged Rackham on the two pics. The only dates given for the Ryder painting are 1875-91, so either he was a spectacularly slow worker, or this was part of a series - the source doesn't say. I've entered the dates as "c. 1875-91".Brianboulton (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, according to the NGA he painted it in a frenzy in 48 hrs, after seeing a performance! 1888-91, they say. Never trust Commons dates. Johnbod (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, who's to say? 1875-91 covers all. Thanks for the info anyway. Brianboulton (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hope this helps. (I've watchlisted this, because I did a more formal review.) 18:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. Constructive criticism is always helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then (slight) changes did much to alleviate my concerns. Well, aside from the sourcing issues. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from Elcobbola:
    • Image:1876Rhinemaidens.jpg - source does not indicate a publication date. What is the basis for the PD-US copyright tag?
      • This is being investigated. Brianboulton (talk) 23:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • On this, I have been firmly advised that the picture is over 120 years old and therefore counts as public domain.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, it doesn't work that way. Age of the picture is not relevant; there are photos from the American Civil War that are still under copyright. Depending on jurisdiction, the lifetime of the author or the date of publication is the determinant. That notwithstanding, verifiability, not truth is the threshold for inclusion; in what country was this first published? When did the author die? Эlcobbola talk 15:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is not some photo that sat in an archive until the 1970s, but a famous publicity photo that was presumably first published in Germany, but also very rapidly round the world in the 1870s. There can be no question of any unexpired copyright. Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Great, where's proof of that claim? Do actually read WP:V; we don't get to ignore the requirement of adequete sourcing because it inconveniences us. Эlcobbola talk 16:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I've fixed it. Эlcobbola talk 16:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Well, clearly I need to go away more often, since problems get resolved when I'm not around. Thanks to all concerned. Unfortunately I'm back home on Saturday. Brianboulton (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image:Covent Garden Rhinemaidens.jpg does not have a copyright tag (!!!) - NFCC#10B and WP:IUP. Discussion of Keith Warner's Covent Garden is minimal. Why do we need an image to understand that the Nixen therein were naked? How does seeing lighting and/or a subsequent underwater effect provide any truly meaningful understanding of the Nixen? Appears to be purely eye-candy (i.e. fails NFCC#8, possibly NFCC#1, as well)
      • I didn't personally add this image (see earlier in this review). Anyway, the reason for using it is not just to illustrate Keith Warner's production, but to help make a general point about developments in the staging of the Rhinemaiden scenes since the earliest production, also illustrated. This issue is an important aspect of this section. Do you think that if such arguments were included in the rationale, the prospects of getting past NFCC#1 and 8 might improve? Brianboulton (talk) 23:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ask yourself this: if the image were removed, would the reader's ability to understand the article be impaired? It certainly isn't imparting any knowledge or understanding to me. Why is prose insufficient to understand that improvements/changes were made to the stagging? Эlcobbola talk 15:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • A better objection might be that it is free advertising for a production still being used. Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          Just a comment: I don't know if this suffices for a fair use justification, but the image did help me -- the strong visual distinction between the old and new stagings, both illustrated in the article, made the updating of Wagner very clear to me. Mike Christie (talk) 15:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Water-sprites, male or female (mermen, mermaids, nix or nixe) - why does the English use plural and the German use singular? German nouns are always capitalized, BTW.
      • I apologise. However, I wasn't actually attempting to write German; "nix" and "nixie" are English words for a water-sprite, male and female. My text should have read "(mermen, mermaids, nixes, nixies)". This doesn't look right, and I am considering replacing the parenthetical part with (German: Nixe or Nixen). Brianboulton (talk) 23:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No need to apologise; I didn't catch that they weren't in italics; nor did I realise that Nix was English, too. Mea culpa. Эlcobbola talk 15:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wagner was very much pre-spelling reform. Floßhilde would be more appropriate in the eyes of purists, but that's just me (although I suspect Wagner is spinning is his grave after what they've done to the language). Эlcobbola talk 14:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did experiment with "Floßhilde" in an early sandbox version, but decided it might confuse a largely English readership. "Flosshilde" is used in most sources, even quite elderly ones. I also think that Wagner is more likely to be spinning in his grave after what they've done to his operas, than what they've done to the language. However, thank you for your comments, helpful as always, and much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 23:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, we can agree that he is spinning. ;) Эlcobbola talk 15:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: outstanding issues 11 October: Images and article name Brianboulton (talk) 07:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Rhinemaidens_(Wagner)/archive1&oldid=1138565028"