This article is about the composer Claudio Monteverdi, a key figure in the evolution of Western classical music at the transition from the Renaissance to the Baroque period. We have already run the article through a peer review and made changes (and sometimes not) accordingly; those who did not see the review may like to take a look at it before commenting here. All and any constructive opinions will of course be very welcome. Smerus (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was a participant at the peer review, see here, my concerns, and they were few, were addressed.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I took part in the peer review and have no outstanding concerns. Looks like a very thorough job. --Folantin (talk) 08:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of the above. Your contributions to the peer review were much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 09:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this: I have altered one of your edits (no evidence that M. 'originated' basso continuo). I've changed 'made' to 'undertook'; but 'almost 150 years' (implying 'less than') is not the same as 'about 150 years' (which could be a few years either way), so I have left it. Best, --Smerus (talk) 10:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Always good to see you at FAC, Smerus (and Brian!). Right, I wasn't saying he originated it (see the edit summary), I was saying that either the lead needs an edit or the text does. The text says "among other innovations, Monteverdi introduces a device that was to become a typical feature in the emergent Baroque era, the concertato style with basso continuo" ... since you're talking about multiple innovations here, and you list and link two things, many readers will think you're referring to both of them as innovations. - Dank (push to talk) 12:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I get! I will think on this. Thanks, Smerus (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have now reworded the text in a manner which I hope meets your point.Smerus (talk) 12:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 12:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. I have changed Vartolo and Kemp. Not too sure about the state references; I have normally used these in the past on FA for US publications for clarity's sake, and under the assumption that this was in accordance with WP guidelines - but I can't now find any such guideline. Would be grateful for any further opinions on this. Best, --Smerus (talk) 14:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Generally what I do is give state for anything but blindingly obvious US cities (so plain "New York", "Boston", "Los Angeles" (as examples) but "New Haven, CT" or "Berkeley, CA"), and country for anything but blindingly obvious non-US cities (so plain "London" but "Cambridge, UK"). It's up to you. You can leave off locations all together which avoids the problem completely - there isn't a requirement for locations, but it IS nice to give them. You can also just give the city and avoid the "state/country" issue. Just need some sort of consistency. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have now gone through and I think have achieved consistency on the above basis.Smerus (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC) –[reply]
Support. I said my bit at PR. Three quibbles so tiny as to be barely visible with the naked eye:
de' Medici or de’Medici? – we have both forms
ritornellos or ritornelli? – ditto
Cateau–Cambrésis – shouldn't the en-dash be a plain hyphen, as in the WP article?
The main editors have done wonders: the article is not only comprehensive and authoritative, it is remarkably readable, given the subject. Clearly meets the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 20:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your accipitridoptical identification of these anomalies, which I have now resolved (de' Medici, ritornellos, Cateau-Cambrésis). And thanks of course for your endorsement. Smerus (talk) 07:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting read, and not excessively difficult for a person with no formal education in music. Possibly a few more links of technical terminology may be helpful.
File:Cremona_Duomo.jpg: this should include an explicit copyright tag for the building. Same with File:Veneza47.jpg, File:Frari_(Venice)_Cappella_dei_milanesi-_tomb_of_Claudio_Monteverdi.jpg
File:Gabriele_D'Anunnzio.png: source link is dead and needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, Nikkimaria, can you please point me to the rules for copyright tags for buildings? I am completely unfamiliar with this territory. With thanks, --Smerus (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Italy does not have freedom of panorama for buildings or sculpture. Thus, with the restrictions noted on that page, building copyrights are held by the architect and are subject to similar expirations as conventional 2D works. Does that help? For example, if the architect died over 100 years ago, {{PD-old}} would apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. I will proceed accordingly.Smerus (talk) 07:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have now tagged the three views, and changed the D'Annunzio pic. Hope this is now OK, Best, Smerus (talk) 07:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Born in Cremona, where he undertook his first musical studies and compositions," – you can undertake musical studies, for sure, but a composition? Not sure.
"His opera L'Orfeo (1607) is the earliest of the genre still widely performed" – perhaps 'in the genre' or 'example/entry/work' of the genre
"Cremona was close to the border of the territory of the Venetian Republic, and not far from the lands controlled by Mantua, in both of which states Monteverdi was later to establish his career"
"When Wert died in 1596, his post was given to Benedetto Pallavicino, but Monteverdi was clearly highly regarded by Vincenzo" – Is 'but' the right preposition here? I'd have used 'yet'. Also do we need both adverbs before 'regarded'?
"but in a note to "the studious reader", he claimed that he would shortly publish a response" – perhaps use 'however,'
We have both 'among' and 'amongst' in the article
Each line in the paragraph ¶ Vespers starts with 'The'
"they were not especially regarded in Monteverdi's time" – highly regarded?
As you might gather, these are only subjective ramblings of a confused Norwegian. :) Hope they are of use anyway; you'll have my support in any case. Gertanis (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for this. I have standardised 'among', cut 'of the territory', and added 'highly' to regarded. The other points seem OK to me as thy are for colloquial usage, unless anyone else objects. Best --Smerus (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Brianboulton has recently made some helpful edits; many thanks to him for that. I noted, however, that the article's source text has quite a few double spaces (" "). Are these deliberate? Gertanis (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've broken up the "The" paragraph beginnings in "Vespers", and knocked out a double adverb somewhere. Thanks for your comments and support, Gertanis. I'm not sure where the double spaces are - perhaps Smerus knows. Brianboulton (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I blitzed the double (sometimes triple) spaces. Quite difficult to spot though. Gertanis (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. I found a few more and dealt with them accordingly.--Smerus (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the lede describes him as a singer, but only mention of his singing in the article is to the fact that there is no evidence for the claim he was "a member of the Cathedral choir"
Late flowering: 2nd para mixes one "San Marco" with two "St. Marks'". Higher up the article, the text standardises on San Marco.
Artusi controversy, "L'Ottuso Academico": in current Italian, ottuso means the same as the English obtuse -- slow of thought, dense, stupid. The translation as "The Tedious Academic" should be checked. (Was Monteverdi's text published in English under this title?)
The picture thumbnails are too small, particularly the three in the Mantua section, and the D'Annunzio. These would benefit from being at least 50% wider.
Many thanks for this. I have adjusted the pix, and changed translation of 'Ottuso'. The remaining use of 'St. Mark's' comes in a direct quote - not sure what to do about this. Being a singer - this is generally stated (e.g. Carter says he presumably trained as a singer as he later gave vocal lessons) but I am having difficulty finding specific evidence at the moment.....Brian, do you have anything? Smerus (talk) 08:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is little evidence to suggest that singing was a major factor in Monteverdi's professional life; in my view, not enough to justify the headline description of him as a "singer", and I suggest we drop this. Similiarly, I think the description of him as a "string player" is questionable. Although this was the role he took when first employed in the Mantuan court, it's hardly what he became famous for. I would prefer to see him identified in the lead as a "composer and choirmaster", which I think more accurately summarises his career. Brianboulton (talk) 09:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He describes himself as a string player in the intros to the 2nd and 3rd books of madrigals, and this is mentioned and cited in the article, so I think that should certainly stay. I am removing singer, and adding choirmaster, as suggested by Brianboulton.Smerus (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More comments from Scarabocchio:
"Cremona lay under the jurisdiction of Milan, a Spanish possession, so that Monteverdi was technically born a Spanish subject. Cremona was close to the border of the Venetian Republic, and not far from the lands controlled by Mantua".
This would be much clearer with a map. Monteverdi was active, professionally, over quite a small area. If the state boundaries haven't changed, it would be possible to re-annotate this map to cover all of the places mentioned in the article. (Specifically, Cremona would need to be added! (inside the Duchy of Milan, just to the left of the 'M' of Mantua)) I don't know how to clone and reannotate maps, but could look into it if you think such a map would add value. Scarabocchio (talk) 10:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Italy 1494
The map doesn't show Cremona. In any event I think the point in question is too trivial to justify including the image, but if Smerus thinks differently he may wish to replace the Cremona Cathedral image with it. Brianboulton (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather leave this. Apart from not showing Cremona, the map is as at 1494; here's a map as at 1600, looking a bit different, and showing Cremona, but alas copyright. Smerus (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a non-starter .. the boundary changes were very fluid at the time. Scarabocchio (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I could draw a map based on the linked map if you can specify what should be in it. • • • Peter (Southwood)(talk): 14:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but honestly it's not worth your time or trouble. The point it would illustrate is of very small significance. Brianboulton (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Images. Possibly CM? The images are now a better size, (thanks, Smerus), but not very inspiring ....
The itWP article has this portrait of a musician with a viola da gamba, dated somewhere between 1570 and 1590 by an unknown Cremonese painter. The image description:
"The sitter has traditionally, but incorrectly, been identified as Antonio Stradivari. Claudio Monteverdi (1567-1643) and Gasparo da Salò (1540-1609) have been suggested. He holds a Brescian viola da gamba, and there is a violin/viola with a bow in the background."
Given the size of it, it's likely a viola da braccio rather than a violin. Even if it is not Monteverdi himself (and this cannot be proven), it is of the right period and right locality to show clothing and instruments. (updated) Scarabocchio (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the choices of images were Smerus's, and I'll leave it to to him decide whether any should be changed. Personal preferences about choices of image are likely to vary. However, such exchanges of opinion properly belong to the article's talk page rather than to the FAC, and I suggest that the discussion be continued there. Brianboulton (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is true, if moderately surprising, that there are no requirements/guidelines on illustrating Featured Articles. The conversation can continue elsewhere, as you suggest. Scarabocchio (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image was in the original article. One reason I took it out is that it was claimed to be possibly CM, whereas there is not in fact a shred of positive evidence for this; I don't think WP should give that line of thought any credibility. On images generally, by all means take the topic to the article talk page, but I suggest leave things as they are for the purposes of the present review.Smerus (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Music section is headed by a link to List of compositions by Claudio Monteverdi. This list uses the Statttkus catalogue as a principal source. The WP Stattkus-Verzeichnis article is, in my view, of little value, since it provides no information other than that in the Stattkus-Verzeichnis source. I don't think it's worth a link. Brianboulton (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a reference to this in the 'Historical Perspectives' section, as it is indicative of growing interest and research in CM.Smerus (talk) 10:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good. The CM article should include something to say that a catalogue of his works exists. Scarabocchio (talk) 07:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Holy orders. Pause: Final para: "His set of Scherzi musicali was published in Venice in 1632.[34] In 1631, Monteverdi was admitted to the tonsure, and was ordained deacon, and later priest, in 1632."
There's a little bit more in itWP (no inline refs, I'm afraid): "We don't know if it was for convenience or from devotion, but Monteverdi took sacred orders on 9 March 1632 .. we find him with the title 'Reverendo' in the second book of Scherzi musicali, which dedication is dated 20 June 1632." Scarabocchio (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fall of Mantua (One more, the last, from itWP). Pause, First para: "Mantua was invaded by Habsburg armies in 1630, who besieged the plague-stricken town, and after its fall in July looted its treasures, and dispersed the artistic community."
There's a bit more context in itWP: "In 1627, the throne of Mantua passed into the hands of Carlo I di Gonzaga-Nevers (the French, cadet branch), provoking a reaction from Emperor Ferdinando II, who in July 1630 sent in his Landsknecht troops. They took the city by assault, devastating it and spreading the plague."
The change of ruling family, and hence change of side in the Wars of Religion, provides a bit of necessary explanation for WHY Mantua was attacked. Scarabocchio (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Holy orders and Mantua. As CM wasn't actually in Mantua at the time, and as there is a link to the article on the fall of Mantua, I don't believe we need to expand on this in the article about CM himself. If you have a citation about CM being 'Reverendo' in the book of Scherzi, please let us know - I can't find one, alas.Smerus (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no access to anything more than Grove and Google, ahime' Scarabocchio (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Banchieri. Artusi, 2nd para: "The theorist Adriano Banchieri wrote ...". I had to check to see if this was *the* Banchieri; it was. Either "The composer and theorist...", or "The composer of madrigal comedies and theorist...". The second has the advantage of identifying this as a compliment to Monteverdi from someone in an alternate and parallel set of musico-dramatic development. Scarabocchio (talk) 08:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the Grove entry on BP, which is cited in the WP BP article, it seems that this animosity is very much a construct of the Grove writer - he offers no concrete evidence. I'm not greatly inclined to poke this fire.Smerus (talk) 09:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that. I have just one point left to make, on context, and I think I can provide a possible solution to that at the same time as I propose the problem. Scarabocchio (talk) 09:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Scarabocchio: Without wishing to hassle you, perhaps you would enlighten us as to what this one point is? Do we need to keep the FAC open for it, or could it just as easily be raised and discussed on the article's talk? Brianboulton (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which criteria are to used for evaluating this article? The WP Opera standards? Scarabocchio (talk) 11:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment: Between here and the peer review, this has had a very thorough going over. I believe we are still waiting for a last point from Scarabocchio but as it only seems to be one point and as the reviewer has not been active much for the last week, I don't think we really need to hold this up any longer. Any further discussion could take place on the talk page. Just two little points from me: I notice that we have no alt text for images. While this is not an explicit requirement at FA, I always think that we should demonstrate best practice by including it. Finally, it might be worth someone checking duplinks as there seem to be quite a few. Neither of these points require this FAC to be kept open but I would appreciate it if someone could have a look. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
