Talk:Émilie (opera)

Context

Undid the revert: recontextualized the material claimed irrelevant

User:Michael Bednarek Of course, administrators often have insights about editing I might miss as a scholar. Been actively editing for over a year and am a member of Wikimedia NYC. Hope to be eligible soon to become an administrator.

As a professionally trained classical singer and a musicologist, I can assert that the info WAS relevant and I've provided more evidence in my revision. Hope it passes the standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SheridanFord (talk • contribs) 14:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

(Please sign your contributions on talk pages with four tildes (~~~); see WP:SIGN.)

To your recent edits in detail:

1. A composer's year of birth doesn't need to be mentioned; the name is linked.
2. There's no point to the citation from Musicology Now; the material preceding it doesn't need a citation, and the citation has nothing to say about the opera.
3. How Châtelet's life is presented in the opera is much clearer now, although the passage about her death in childbirth is wrong about the number of her children (4).
4. The link to Saariaho's essay from the 2010 French program notes in English is informative. She describes the musical structures at length, but I don't find anything there supporting the sentence about "creative license to dramatically and sonically set the two births". Which two births? The child and Principia in French? I think that sentence should be removed and the link be placed in "External links".
5. I think the term "intervention" for this opera is baffling and wrong. Further, the citation of Opera: The Undoing of Women by Catherine Clément offered there was written in 1979, so she can't have written anything about this work. The other citation there, Feminine Endings by Susan McClary, was written 1991. I suggest to remove that sentence.
6. The article by Alex Ross in The New Yorker is, as always, insightful, but it says nothing about this opera and only very little about Saariaho; it should be removed along with the preceding sentence.

In the meantime, I found that the external link to the booklet at the Opéra de Lyon has gone dead; I will it replace with a working links and leave the above points to your consideration. I also took the liberty of shortening the section heading on this page. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Clarification needed

Question about the requests for clarification in the Further Reading section The two McClary citations that have been flagged for further clarification appear to be complete and correct, so I'm not sure what kind of information to add. I've read both articles, so I know that they do in fact talk about the opera Emilie. Would it be helpful and appropriate to add a line to each citation explaining how it relates to Emilie, or is there some other way to respond? Thanks so much for any advice that anyone can offer! HistoryandtheArts (talk) 06:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

As specified in the requests for clarification: How are these McClary items relevant to this opera? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply! I guess what I'm wondering about is the format for the addition. Where in each entry do I put the clarifications, and how do I delete the requests for clarification that prompted the work when I am done? I've been looking at other Wikipedia articles for help, and I haven't come across any that show annotated bibliography entries that I can use as a model. Do you have a suggestion about how to add the annotations to this one? Thanks! HistoryandtheArts (talk) 23:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

The obvious way to explain the relevance of McClary's works to this opera is to cite them as sources. As both publications are not freely available, precise page numbers and quotes would help for verification. If it's not practical to use them as sources because they don't say anything substantial about Émilie, they should be omitted. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)