Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Monteverdi's lost operas/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ucucha 03:38, 10 February 2012 [1].

Monteverdi's lost operas edit

Monteverdi's lost operas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Monteverdi played a key part in the development of opera as a theatrical and musical art form, so depending on your standpoint you may wish to bless him or curse him. Of the ten operas he actually wrote himself, seven are lost; in those days operas marked specific occasions or celebrations, and once they had been performed their music tended to be discarded like yesterday's newspaper. Monteverdi's missing works are objects of great fascination and speculation to students of baroque music and early opera history (and a matter of relief to numerous others). In any event it is interesting to see how even so distinguished a figure as Monteverdi repeatedly got the runaround from his lords and masters. Thanks to all who participated in a particularly detailed peer review, and here's hoping. Brianboulton (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I took part in the peer review, where such minor quibbles as I had were thoroughly dealt with. This article, IMO, meets all the Featured Article criteria. Moreover it is an article that will enhance Wikipedia's prestige: it fills a significant gap in online coverage of an important aspect of musical history, with a comprehensiveness and authority unmatched elsewhere. – Tim riley (talk) 12:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you. Knowing your, well, unenthusiasm for the man in question, your willingness to review and indeed supply material for my efforts is noble indeed. Brianboulton (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This is a well-written and excellently sourced article. In my opinion it meets or exceeds all of the FA criteria, and would make a superb addition to the roster of Feature Articles on wikipedia. Well done!4meter4 (talk) 12:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Support - I also took part in the peer review and all of my (minor) concerns were addressed there. The article more than meets the FA criteria and there are no dab links. The external link checker finds that some links are to a subscription required site, but this is properly noted in the article references. Well done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Media review The painting images are all old enough to be out of copyright and thus photos of them are free in the US. The photo of the palace is also free. The sound file is free. I added a link to the web page of the uploader (who is no longer active here), and I note Raul654 OK'ed the file's transfer to Commons (so it should be fine). The uploader recorded and sang the work himself, so that seems fine. The only possible question is which version of the song did he record - I assume it is the one from the Madrigals book, so all should be fine. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source spot-check:

  • Ref 95: Article text is covered in page cited, and is sufficiently paraphrased.
  • Ref 110: Article text is covered in page cited, and is sufficiently paraphrased.

--Laser brain (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Addendum: I reviewed the source list in its entirety, and found all of them to be appropriate and reliable. --Laser brain (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I went through this while it was in peer review and any concerns I had were addressed. An excellent piece of work and a great addition to our opera articles. --Laser brain (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the sources spotcheck, for your help at peer review and for your support here. Brianboulton (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment on FA criteria 1 and 2. Excellent coverage, solid writing and consistency throughout. This represents everything a FA should be. Auree ★ 00:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the lede, there's no mention of Monteverdi's nationality or any location where his works took place until the second paragraph. I'm not too sure, but it might be favourable to include this somewhere in the first paragraph.
  • "The composer Claudio Monteverdi (1567–1643), in addition to a large output of church music and madrigals, wrote prolifically for the stage." Maybe it's just me, but without the introduction of a verb in the first clause the interruption reads quite oddly.
  • Check for usage of restrictive vs nonrestrictive clauses--there are several instances in the lede where the latter is applied incorrectly.
  • I've made a light copy-edit to the lede; feel free to revert my changes. Auree ★ 09:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added his nationality (thanks for spotting the omission). As to the "missing" verb, I could introduce "producing" before "a large output...", though I'm not sure that it would be an improvement. Can you give an example of an incorrect nonrestrictive clause? Perhaps I know the proose too well, but I'm afraid I'm not seeing it. Thanks for your interest in the article. Brianboulton (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, Graham seems to have taken care of the clauses already. Lede looks great, thanks. I'll take the liberty of adjusting any other faulty clauses as I read through. Btw, minor point, but does the article implement the serial comma or not? Right now it's used interchangeably throughout. Auree ★ 21:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • "came into in general use in about" ?
  • "The new genre had specific characteristics such as a complete story told through characters, and the use of recitative, aria and arioso as well as choruses in the vocal parts." Something seems off here, probably has to do with the comma placements vs the usage of as well as
  • "For example, Monteverdi's Il combattimento di Tancredi e Clorinda (1624) is a work whose precise genre has proved particularly difficult to define." Tighten to "For example, the precise genre of Monteverdi's Il combattimento di Tancredi e Clorinda (1624) has proved particularly difficult to define"?

For Mantua

  • "L'arianna was composed for the Mantua court as part of the festivities for the wedding of the heir to the duchy" Capitalization missing (?), and just a bit repetitive later on (for the... of the... for the... of the...)
  • "Monteverdi complained bitterly" Remove "bitterly"?
  • "Theseus agonises over his decision to abandon her, but is advised by his counsellor that he is wise to do so," Subtle ambiguity: "to do so" could refer to either his agonising over the decision or his abandoning Ariadne
  • A few minor tweaks, feel free to revert
  • "It seems that the Gonzaga court was trying to persuade Monteverdi to return to Mantua" Is "seems that" the best choice of words?
  • "Instead, he went to Parma, to work on a commission to provide musical entertainments" Is there any way to avoid the "to... to... to..."?
  • "while on a mission seeking aid against the armies that were encircling Mantua" Tighten by removing "on a mission"?
  • Some more tweaks.

For Venice

  • "{I]n the evening with torches there was acted and represented in music ..." Bracket glitch?
  • "By her temperament, Proserpina anticipates Poppea; Pachino is a forerunner for Ottone; some of the discourses have the rhetorical flavour of Nerone and Seneca in the later opera." I'm quite confused by this sentence
  • And some more. Obviously I'm not finding much to nitpick about here; the article is extremely comprehensive and the writing is great. Auree ★ 21:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have dealt with these, either per your suggestions or using my own judgement. There were some clumsy constructions and I'm glad you picked them up. I had no problem with your minor ce tweaks. I'm grateful for your help. Brianboulton (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changes look great, thanks. I still recommend checking for serial comma consistency, but I'm happy to support this promotion now (: Auree ★ 00:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your work & support Will check the serial comma issue. Brianboulton (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good, just a few stylistic nitpicks:

  • Why is "Carter 2002" the only short citation that includes the year?
  • Because he is also the author of another source - see ref 31
  • Ref 42: Check spacing
  • Fixed
  • In most references, the subscription templates have been added after the citation templates sans spacing. It might be preferable to insert spaces for aesthetic purposes (see Ref 112).
  • Spaces inserted
  • Needs consistency in how publisher locations are notated for sources
  • I have regularised the format of state names - not sure what else?
  • Check author notation for Monteverdi (1994)
  • What's the problem?
  • This is going to sound silly, but I can't remember what problem I found before. Struck. Auree ★ 00:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check editor notation for Beat, Janet E. (1968) vs Rosand, Ellen (2007).
  • Fixed typo
  • Apart from the typo, punctuation inconsistencies (bolded): "An Icognito debate: questions of meaning". In Whenham, John and Wistreich, Richard (eds)." vs "Monteverdi and the Opera Orchestra of his Time" in Arnold, Denis and Fortune, Nigel (eds):"
  • Got it! The Beat info was picked up from another article where a slightly different format was used, but I have standardised now. Also corrected the spelling (Incognito) Brianboulton (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Auree ★ 21:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • One more I overlooked: "Incognito" is misspelled in the source and its short citation. Auree ★ 00:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for te sources review. Brianboulton (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gilding the lily support I also participated in the peer review; my concerns were addressed then.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. It should be on record that your PR participation was considerable. Brianboulton (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I haven't looked at the article in detail, but one thing struck me: the article on L'incoronazione di Poppea correctly points out that it is very far from certain that the opera was composed in its entirety by Monteverdi, yet in this article it is always labelled as by Monteverdi without any qualification. Perhaps a footnote could be added somewhere? --GuillaumeTell 11:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Excellent point, which I have addressed by the addition of a footnote. Brianboulton (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have commented in the peer review am completely satisfied with the incorporation of a few concerns. One minor addition:

In the middle of the plot of Arianna I read "famous". Perhaps I am over-allergic to those words, but I think - since it's stated elsewhere that the lament is famous - it could be dropped in the plot. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed and done. Brianboulton (talk) 09:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Looked at the rest, impressed!

Support, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Monteverdi%27s_lost_operas/archive1&oldid=1136096469"