Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Royal Opera, London/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Royal Opera, London

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Having got the English National Opera article to FA recently, I thought it only right to upgrade the article on the other big opera company in London. Its history is shorter (first performance was in 1947) but crowded with incident. Grateful for comments on the prose, the shape and structure of the article, and the balance between mentions of singers, producers and conductors. And indeed anything else. – Tim riley (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nikkimaria
  • "the development of performers from within the company has been a consistent policy" - not sure what this means. Do you perhaps mean "promotion"?
    • It was rather more than that. Webster sought to nurture the careers of home-grown singers, both within his opera house and overseas. I'll ponder a rewording. Tim riley (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Redrawn. Tim riley (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Royal Opera" or "The Royal Opera"? "the opera-in-English policy" or "the opera in English policy"? Check for consistency throughout
    • Good. Thanks for this; I'll go through and make both consistent. Tim riley (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Done. Tim riley (talk) 07:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need to link terms for non-musicians: impresario, Boosey and Hawkes, etc. I'd even be tempted to wikilink opera at some point.
    • Will do. Not sure about "opera" but will do the others. Tim riley (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Now done. Tim riley (talk) 07:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "grant of £60,000 and an annual subsidy of £25,000" - how much is this in modern terms?
    • I am uncertain which index to use for this. [1], the site I use for such indices, offers £769,000 using RPI; £810,000 using the GDP deflator; £2,470,000 using average earnings; £2,770,000 using per capita GDP; and £3,500,000.00 using the share of GDP. Tim riley (talk) 07:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll develop this point in connection with the wider point about subsidy suggested below by Aa77zz Tim riley (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "if still not quite in the top flight" - what does this mean?
  • "Solti was a strong proponent of the stagione system of scheduling performances, rather than the traditional repertory system" - this should be explained
  • "Both Kubelik and Solti had experienced hostility from sections of the audience in their early days with the company, and Davis also did so" - recast this sentence to begin "Like Kubelik and Solti..."?
  • Some consistency issues in reference formatting
  • Newspaper sources without weblinks should include page numbers
  • Be consistent in how multi-author sources are notated. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have used x and y where there are two authors and x et al where there are more than two. Tim riley (talk) 07:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this: all very much to the point. I shall enjoy going through and fine tuning accordingly. More anon. Tim riley (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Aa77zz

Perhaps you could include more information on the finances. There has been criticism of the substantial subsidy received from the British government. How big is the subsidy? How important is it to the company? How much of Arts Council budget does it represent? Also, I dimly remember reading about threats of strike action by the staff - should this be mentioned? Aa77zz (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent points. I'm digging some facts out about the subsidy (very mean by European standards). There were industrial relations problems on and off from the 1950s onwards, some of them quite severe, but I'll have to ponder on whether they merit a mention in the article. Thank you very much for these suggestions. Tim riley (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

emailed comments transcribed These comments were emailed to me and are reproduced here for completeness:

  • Intro
    • The ‘company’ has its orchestra and chorus, presumably under contract, but when you refer in the second para to the principal singers as being part of a ‘company’, is that true any longer? The ROH may have its favoured up-and-coming singers, but I doubt they are under contract and nurtured as a matter of policy in the way earlier generations of singers were. Quite when the change happened is hard to say – probably in the vile and disgusting 1980s, a dark age in the history of our country, its indigenous culture and way of life. However, I’m not on top of the detail.
    • Is the distinction (whatever it may be) between a ‘musical director’ and a ‘music director’ worth highlighting here? I’d just use the current title of ‘music director’ and leave the footnote further down the page to mention the change (which is a piece of meaningless semantics).
  • Beginnings
    • The translation via RPI indexes of half a crown into £3.29 is probably misleading as a way of indicating affordability. A more accurate measure would be a percentage of average earnings, but that would be very hard to work out. I would either add a qualification or leave out the translation. (cf the reference in the 1970-86 section to a ‘trifling cost of £3’ for promming)
  • 1950s
    • Might it be possible to find a photo of Joan Sutherland aetat 30? The one you have included is a dire warning about the unwisdom of dyeing one’s hair.
      • (My correspondent is not a contributor to Wikipedia and is unaware of the restrictions that apply to use of copyright pictures.) Tim riley (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1960s para 4
    • The ‘Although’ clause beginning the second sentence qualifies the first sentence. Suggest you change the full stop after Royal Opera House to a comma and change the comma after ‘companys’s productions’ to a full stop.
    • An annual appearance at the Proms, so far as I can recollect, bit the dust many years ago. Suggest ‘For many years thereafter…’
  • 1970-86
    • Same comment about the photo of Colin Davis mutatis mutandis as I made about the photo of Joan Sutherland.
      • Tis the best we're going to get, alas. Tim riley (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the last para Caballé is missing its accent and it’s Richard Van Allan. I think the Wiki-policy is to highlight links to another article only when the name first appears. Pavarotti’s name appears earlier and so may others (I haven’t made a check).
  • 1987-2002
    • Another unflattering photo (of Haitink). I realise it may be hard to find a better one in this and the other instances cited, but I mention the point for what it’s worth.
      • Another better-than-nothing free use image. Tim riley (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Haitink’s antecedents (first sentence) amount to a good deal more than Glyndebourne. He was the youngest ever principal conductor of the Concertgebouw (1959) and was at the LPO from 1967-79.
  • 2002 – date
    • Pappano (first para) may technically be British, but has Italian roots and was, I believe, brought up mainly in America. Suggest you either delete ‘British’ or add more detail.
Comments by Wehwalt
  • Lede
Consecutive sentences in the first paragraph of the lede begin with "it", I'd mix it up a bit.
Done. Tim riley (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest that the fourth paragraph be added to the end of the second.
Good. Done. Tim riley (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tooley's retirement date should probably be stated.
Done. Tim riley (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
" managerial continuity was regained." I'm sure that was pleasant for all concerned, but speaking as a very rusty M.B.A., I have no idea what that means.
Touché. Redrawn. Tim riley (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background
With the boxed quote (I like the idea of that and am anxious to contemplate using it in my own work), I would state the name of the two lords' work. It is rather jarring to have two lords credited as saying something. Chorus? Iolanthe? The mind boggles.
Good. Added Tim riley (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would name the trust if possible, and also make it clearer that Lord Keynes was its chairman. (Arguably at present it's ambiguous as more than one concern is mentioned in the paragraph).
Yes, better. Tim riley (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The British government had recently, for the first time, given money for a modest fund to subsidise the arts," Suggest shorten to "The British government had recently begun to give funds to subsidise the arts".
A great improvement. Tim riley (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beginnings
"to contemplate" Suggest "to consider".
Done Tim riley (talk) 09:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Before the war," I would suggest splitting into two sentences, possibly three. Rankl's job description is a bit tough to read, any way you can tenderise that would be nice.
Done. Tim riley (talk) 09:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest adding to the next to last paragraph some mention of what Rankl was doing. You've established he conducted the first night. You should say something of how much conducting he was doing to establish the rationale for his annoyance at being displaced for gala nights by Beecham et al.
Done. Tim riley (talk) 09:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"half a crown" Ah, numismatics. Consider shifting the pipe from half a crown to half crown instead crown to Crown (British coin). After all, if I mentioned Nixon buying a glass of lemonade for half a dollar, I'd probably link to dollar, it's the term that's going to draw the puzzlement, not the half part, after all.
Well, yes, but the crown was long gone, and half a crown was still very much with us. I could change it to two shillings and sixpence if you think that would simplify it. Tim riley (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More coming. Looks fine so far. I have to do something else and may not get back to this tonight.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the remainder:

  • 1950s
"famous musical director" "Prominent" would be better, if the source would support it.
Redrawn. Tim riley (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some mention of how the Royal Opera managed in the interregnum after Rankl would be a good idea.
Done in tandem with above.
"English-speaking company members " This is a bit of a problem, as it is unclear whether you are people who perform in English or just speak the language. Also, that sentence should be split after the laundry list.
Yes. Done. Tim riley (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1960s
"English-speaking" per above comment
Ditto. Tim riley (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a sentence summarising that the RO moved away from opera translated into English towards presentation in the original language should be added right before you discuss the stagione preference.
Done. Tim riley (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
" and by Poulenc, Ravel and Tippett. " Due to the long parenthetical, I'd put "works" before "by".
Much better. Done. Tim riley (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1970
"Appointing a substantial theatrical figure such as Hall was an important departure, but Hall changed his mind, and did not take up the appointment." These are two thoughts that can't be in the same sentence. Split after "departure" and perhaps say "Hall, however, changed ..."
Done. Tim riley (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"defection" I think that if you use this term you have to say where Hall went. "defection" implies a destination, which then should be stated. Or change to another term.
Yes indeed. Done. Tim riley (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
" unlike Rankl" This should start a new sentence. At present it tries to do too much.
Done. Tim riley (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1987
"a staging by Götz Friedrich" Of what? The Ring? I would say so more clearly.
Done. Tim riley (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest mentioning something specific The House saw. That would be interesting to see, I will have to see if it is on in this country.
I'll investigate. I didn't see much of the original series. Tim riley (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"the Council's own rules" Cut "own".
Hmmm. Done, with reservations. Tim riley (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"as did the chairman and board of the opera house." Perhaps "as did the entire board of the opera house, including the chairman".
Done. Tim riley (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2002
"New works were staged by composers including" This is confusing phrasing. If you mean either brand new or almost operas, perhaps "Contemporary works ..." ? Not sure that helps.
All premieres. Recast to make clear. Tim riley (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"first Ring cycle" Unless there is talk of a second, and I don't see it in the article, I would omit "first".
Done. Tim riley (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellently done. Very interesting. Holds the reader's attention well, based on a sample of one. Looking forward to seeing it at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for these comments. I shall enjoy working through them. Tim riley (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All suggestions except the half-crown (as above) and example from The House (am investigating) now acted on. Some very helpful improvements there, and I'm greatly obliged. Tim riley (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think 2s 6d improves things, so I'd just let it go. Good luck.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: The article has been extensively and thoroughly reviewed, and I feel I can add little to the existing wisdom, but here are a few thoughts:-

  • "From the outset the company has comprised a mixture of British and Commonwealth singers and international guest stars." Pedant's point: surely, "international guest stars" cannot be considered as part of the company? Otherwise they are not guests.
  • "...the grant of the title the Royal Opera in 1968". Is the formal title "The Royal Opera" (with definite article) or "Royal Opera" (without)? Either way, I think the title should at this point be placed within inverted commas. (I see you have used the commas in the body of the text but I'm still unclear as to whether the "the" is part of the formal title.)
    • Inverted commas added to lead. The definite article is lower case according to The Times. Tim riley (talk) 07:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current values: I see you have given up-to-date equivalent values for the half-crown tickets of the 1940s but not for the government grants of £25,000 and £60,000, nor for the £3 Colin Davis tickets of the 1970s (I remember them well). Someone may point this out (I'm not too bothered myself). It's a shame the egregious Levin refers to the £3 as a "trifling cost"; it was way above what we penniless students could easily afford, and sacrifices had to be made.
    • I've added the info in re the £3 tickets (£27 - I see what you mean), but not about the initial grants, as I can't work out which index to use: MeasuringWorth offers £769,000 using RPI; £810,000 using the GDP deflator; £2,470,000 using average earnings; £2,770,000 using per capita GDP; and £3,500,000.00 using the share of GDP. Any suggestions which to use? Tim riley (talk) 07:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Davis image looks to date from much later than his ROH years, and perhaps the caption should note this ("Photographed in 200?")
  • Suggestion: "The second celebrated production of the late 1950s was in 1958, marking the present theatre's centenary: a production by Luchino Visconti of Verdi's Don Carlos..." Unnecessarily wordy, methinks. I'd reduce to: "In 1958 the present theatre's centenary was marked by Luchino Visconti's production of Verdi's Don Carlos..."
  • There is a redundant comma after "Janáček" (1960s, paragraph 3), and a redundant "the" in the next paragraph ("was limited to the centres with large enough theatres")
  • Shouldn't Solti's Ring be mentioned in his section, rather than left to an unattributed reference in the Davis section?
    • Point taken, but I can't see where it could conveniently be fitted in within the Solti section. (And Solti's Ring was unfavourably compared by some to Kempe's.) Tim riley (talk) 07:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the Pappano image caption should identify the left-hand old cove as the President of Italy.
  • General point: after mentioning the charitable trust which was established towards the end of the war, there is no further indication in the article of the activities of the trust which, presumably, is still the formal proprietor of the opera company. Should we perhaps know who some of Keynes's successors were, and the extent to which the trust has influenced the development of the company?
    • Good point. When Keynes died, Lord Waverley (aka Sir John Anderson) took over and was a tower of strength in dealing with government etc, but he left Webster pretty much alone in running the opera company. He was succeeded by Lord Drogheda, who was (to Webster's dismay) a much more hands-on chairman. After Drogheda, there was a messy period with various chairman of no conspicuous note. The present chairman, Simon Robey, is a merchant banker; he keeps a low profile, to judge by recent press coverage. I am doubtful that much can be made of all this in the context of the article without distracting attention from the main narrative. Tim riley (talk) 07:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise Bravo, bravissimo. Brianboulton (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for these very good points, all addressed one way or the other above. Tim riley (talk) 07:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by MistyMorn:

As a layman, I found the article very informative and suitably encyclopaedic. It is well structured and would seem, to my untutored eyes, to be adequately complete. The advance on the material available in June is staggering. Graphically, I felt that the use of the photographs in the layout broke up this somewhat lengthy history page rather nicely (funny how the B&W photos come out much more clearly than two of the colour ones, presumably due to copyright limitations). I also liked the two 'quotation boxes' and wondered whether there was room for any more.

I've made some copy edits directly in the article, which you can easily reject or further modify. Not all were technically successful: an attempt to insert a space between sentences in note 2 didn't work out (a programming glitch, or maybe I missed something?).

Just three minor queries:

  • Penultimate sentence of Beginnings: Would suggest "contemporary" instead of "modern", as I think Walton at least was considered in many quarters rather old-fashioned by the the time Troilus and Cressida was staged.
  • Last sentence of 1970 to 1986 ("Among his other successes were The Trojans and Benvenuto Cellini."): It may just be my 'Berlioz bias', but to my ears the phrase "Among his other successes" makes the 'successes' sound a trifle understated.
  • 2002 to date: I think the very recent Il Trittico might deserve a mention at the end because this rarely staged triple bill requiring three different casts is such a major production challenge, and it has, I believe, been rather well received. MistyMorn (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Royal_Opera,_London/archive1&oldid=453870175"