Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rhinemaidens

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 User:SandyGeorgia 19:34, 28 October 2008 [1].

---

Rhinemaidens

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk), Peter cohen (talk)

We are nominating this article for featured article because it has been extended and expanded substantially since achieving GA in April, and in our view it now meets all the FA criteria. It has recently undergone a most active peer review in which many participated. While all contributions were appreciated, we would particularly like to thank the following: Mike Christie; Johnbod; Elcobbola; Ealdgyth. Co-nominators: Brianboulton (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC) and Peter cohen (talk)

RickBot picks co-noms from the first line in the FAC; did you mean to add Peter cohen there? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Peter is co-nom. Can this be fixed, please? Brianboulton (talk) 09:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm here now. Brian and I have agreed each to respond to our own work.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Eek, incorrect use of a "Main" template at the top of the article, see WP:LAYOUT and the description on each template, that link should be in the text, not a template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't undrstand what I did wrong, but do I assume this as been fixed? Brianboulton (talk) 09:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Support. I peer reviewed the article; it was good then and has improved since. I would also like to mention that there was some debate over the value of the image of the naked Rhinemaidens. I believe this is justified fair use because for someone who does not see many operas, it is a vivid illustration of the differences in staging between the earliest productions and the present day. That section of the article makes specific reference to rigid interpretation insisted upon by Cosima Wagner for decades; I think this image is a very clear depiction of the changes since 1951. Mike Christie (talk) 00:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Support Comment I moved the article as requested. On checking the disambiguation checker, there are four dabs in the article that need to be fixed. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the move. I have fixed the four dabs. Brianboulton (talk) 09:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I have now carefully read the article and apart from a typo I found and fixed, found nothing else to raise here. Well-written, well-referenced, nicely illustrated - I find it meets all of the FA criteria. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Support passes all the criteria and is nicely neatly written. Domiy (talk) 07:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Support as of this version Leaning to support with a few caveats, based on this version — Jappalang

All issues resolved, Jappalang (talk) 09:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

|content=Lead

• "although they are generally considered as a single unit and act together accordingly"

Not too sure about "a single unit", perhaps "one" or "a single entity"?

• "Of all the 34 characters"

I think "all" is redundant here.

• "before he died, in Venice in 1883."

Is the time and location necessary? The last part, "in Venice in 1883." seems a bit rough on on reading. Perhaps "before he died in 1883." or "before he died in Venice, 1883."?

All these fixed. Brianboulton (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Origins

• "Water-sprites (German: Nixen) occur in many European myths and legends"

When I read "occur", I would think that the subject was not pre-planned in the target (event). Hence, I find this weird as I am pretty certain that myths are created by people who intended to tell of these entities. Why not replace "occur" with "appear"?

Agreed - "appear" is better. Brianboulton (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• " "Bronnlinde" "

Are the quotation marks necessary?

Newman put the name in quotes, presumably to draw attention to the name not being what it ended as. I don't think it matters too much whether they are there or not, so I've removed them.Brianboulton (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Later still, as Wagner continued working his reverse chronology from Siegfried's death"

Noting that the preceding sentence starts with "Later", perhaps "Later still," can be dropped. Furthermore, Wagner was stated to "continued working", giving a hint of continuance from the preceding sentence.

Yes, agreed Brianboulton (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "between the Oceanids' treatment of Prometheus and the Rhinemaidens' initially tolerant treatment of Alberich."

How about "between the Oceanids' treatment of Prometheus and the Rhinemaidens' initial tolerance of Alberich." to rid the second "treatment"?

done--Peter cohen (talk) 13:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The opera story does not reveal"

Is "story" not redundant here (as operas are generally assumed to be sagas that are sung)?

Agreed - story" deleted. Brianboulton (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The identity of the father who entrusted them with their guardianship of the gold"

The guardianship was not yet theirs before the entrusting. How does "The identity of the father who entrusted them with the guardianship of the gold" or "The identity of the father who entrusted them to guard the gold" sound?

I've adopted the former of your suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Some have suggested"

Some of who? Scholars? Opera critics? Notable opera patrons?

I've made it "Some Wagner scholars"--Peter cohen (talk) 13:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Nature and attributes

• Not an actionable item or suggestion but a praise. I love "The Rhinemaidens act essentially as a unity, with a composite yet elusive personality. Apart from Flosshilde’s implied seniority, demonstrated by occasional light rebukes and illustrated musically ...". On reading, there is a seeming pleasing rhythm of "-ly" and "-ty". Pity it draws out and ends at "musically". I really love the melody here.
• Unfortunately to me, an overly long dependent clause followed by a short non-essential clause disrupts the last sentence. I would drop the "one of the deeper female voices" or merge it; thus,

"Apart from Flosshilde’s implied seniority, demonstrated by occasional light rebukes and illustrated musically by awarding the role to a contralto or mezzo, one of the deeper female voices, their characters are undifferentiated." becomes

"Apart from Flosshilde’s implied seniority, demonstrated by occasional light rebukes and illustrated musically by awarding the role to the deeper-voiced contralto or mezzo, their characters are undifferentiated." Would that be better?

Yes. I introduced the deeper voice bit last night as I felt some sort of explanation of contralto and mezzo was needed. You've fund a less wordy way of putting it.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "but finally wise in the undisclosed counsel which they give to Brünnhilde."

I think it would be better to explicitly say that they are shown to be wise by the counsel they gave, correct: "but finally wise as shown by the undisclosed counsel which they give to Brünnhilde."?

Yes, accepted. Brianboulton (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Sabor sees the personality of the Rhinemaidens as blending the ..."

Would "Sabor sees the personality of the Rhinemaidens as a blend of the ..." sound better?

I think you're right. Our excessive use of present participles sems to have caught the eyes of the assessors.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Thus the whole was ..."

I think it needs to be asserted as "Thus Woglinde's opening lines were ...".

I've reworded the whole sentence it is now "Thus Woglinde's lines portray both the childishness of the Rhinemaidens and the holiness of Nature."--Peter cohen (talk) 13:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Their sorrow ..."

Since we diverted the main subject by talking about Wagner in the last part of the preceding paragraph, perhaps we need to open again with "The Rhinemaidens' sorrow ...".

OK, done Brianboulton (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "whose actions in provoking Alberich to the theft of the gold are responsible for all that follows."

How about "whose provocation of Alberich to steal the gold is responsible for all that follows."

OK, also done Brianboulton (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The fact that only its return to their care"

Probably need to assert what "its" refer to: "The fact that only the return of the gold to their care".

I have rejigged the sentence as, on re-reading, it didn't seem quite right. Let me know what you think. Brianboulton (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It does seem a bit unwieldy ("the fact that" would usually be ungainly to readers). My initial concern was that the "gold" was the subject, but it turns out to be the "ring". There needs to be a connection between the gold and the ring to establish the "unifying" theory. I am not too certain over how my following suggestion will flow, but take a look:

"As the titular ring was made from the stolen gold, only its return to the Rhinemaidens' care in the waters of the Rhine will lift the curse on it; hence, the return of the stolen property provides a unifying "thematic consistency" to Wagner's complex story." Jappalang (talk) 01:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The connection between the stolen gold and the ring should of course be clear from the Rheingold Scene 1 summary - but that section has not yet been encountered. I think your suggested wording is clear and precise, and am happy to adopt it.

Das Rheingold, Scene 1

• "measureless power would be his who could forge a ring from it."

I am not certain "who" can be joined to a possessive...

Suggestion A: "measureless power would belong to he who could forge a ring from it."

Suggestion B (gender neutral): "measureless power would belong to the one who could forge a ring from it."

I've gone for gender neutrality. Brianboulton (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Götterdämmerung, Act 3 Scene 1

• "whilst hunting"

"while hunting"?

How was that missed in the copyedit? Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Rhinemaidens' music

• "in Götterdämmerung Hagen, enslaved to the ring by his desire for it, utters his ..."

Bearing in mind the numerous commas here in this sentence, I still think Hagen needs to be separated from the play's name to avoid minor confusion; hence, "in Götterdämmerung, enslaved to the ring by his desire for it, Hagen utters his ...".

Fixed Brianboulton (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Rhinemaidens on stage

• Not seriously opposable, but could the red links for Nikolaus Lehnhoff and Keith Warner be eliminated?

I thought I had responded to this, but... I think directing Ring productions at major opea houses means that these two shoudl meet notability requirements. So I don't want to de-link them. In theshort-mid term I don't feel able to write the rtices on them myself.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The Bayreuth Ring which followed Chéreau's, directed by Peter Hall in 1983–86, took the natural innocence aspect of the Rhinemaidens literally, by presenting them naked, a feature shared with Keith Warner's Ring production for the Royal Opera House Covent Garden, first staged 2004–06."

Lots of commas and seemingly re-runoffish; suggestion: "After Chéreau, Peter Hall directed the Bayreuth Ring for 1983–86. His version took the natural innocence aspect of the Rhinemaidens literally; they were naked. Keith Warner adopted this a feature in his Ring production for the Royal Opera House Convent, first staged 2004–06."

Reworded based on your suggestion but slightly adapted.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Whilst Warner"

"While Warner"?

Done--Peter cohen (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

}} A marvelous article, which I believe should be read to Wagnerian music to receive an inspiring experience. I only have a few quibbles above to clarify on. Jappalang (talk) 12:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I stand in awe of your eye for detail, and meticulous reviewing. Thank you for the care you ave given to the article and for the many helpful suggestions, also for the encouraging words. Brianboulton (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a well-written and comprehensive article on the minor characters of an epic saga. The reading experience is helped by the prose and the images, which helped to flesh out official imaginings and portrayals of the characters. After reading this, I think the other characters of Wagner's work could benefit from it. Would Peter and Brian be inspired to work on "Valkyries (Wagner)" next? Jappalang (talk) 09:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

An intriguing suggestion. I can't speak for Peter, but at present I am rather overburdened with wikiprojects, not to mention obligations in what is often risibly referred to as "real life". A few months down the line, though, and.....who knows? Brianboulton (talk) 14:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the praise, which I accept while acknoeledging that Brian is the main author. Unfortunately I need to concentrate on my real life research at present and not on new Wikipedia projects. Next year, perhaps.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

• I peer reviewed the article, and the only question was http://www.mrichter.com/opera/files/bayreuth.htm this site which I'm on the fence about and leaving out for other reviewers to decide for themselves if it is reliable.

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out withe link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• I doubt Richter's site is reliable since there is no proof that Helmet Weber gave Richter permission. Neither do we know what credentials Weber has. Nonetheless I think the single reference this source serves as ("the debut of Hanna Schwarz as Flosshilde in 1975") can be found in Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians if we believe what this colloborative site says. Once the book is gotten, it should be fairly easy to replace this unreliable source, or failing that removal of Hanna Schwarz's mention would eliminate this issue, no? Jappalang (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't have access to that book. I do have online access to The Grove Book of Opera Singers which has this rather strange sentence in the entry for Schwarz "In Hamburg her roles included Cherubino and Dorabella; at Bayreuth in 1975 she graduated to Rhinemaiden and Valkyrie, appearing as Erda the following year." Given her voice type, Flosshilde has to be the Rhinemaiden she played. As we're just looking for confirmation of what we already knew, can I assume we have it here without violting WP:NOR?--Peter cohen (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Further investigation has come up with [2] which suggests friendly relations between Richter and Weber. As for Weber's credentials, he appears to be a reputable academic [3] but not in music.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I've no done a search on The Grove Book of Opera Singers and found that Margarete Matzenauer sang Flosshilde at Bayreuth in 1911. She's probably a bigger name than Schwarz. So I can replace what we have with another singer wh sang the part.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments: Violation of "Section names should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article" (MOS) Rhinemaidens' music --> Music?, Rhinemaidens on stage --Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

MOS continues the sentence you quote above: "...unless doing so is shorter or clearer" (emphasis added). I believe that the sections in question would be less clear if they were reduced to "Music" and "On stage", and would suggest that the exception applies in this case. If the weight of opinion is against me I will of course defer to it. Brianboulton (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think "Rhinemaidens' music" is fine, as simply "music" could be too broad a concept (it could lead to thoughts that the section is of songs composed by the fictional characters). "On stage", however, could work since the article is on the Rhinemaidens and by "on stage", the section will be dealing with their performances in the theatre (real-life, not in-universe elements). Jappalang (talk) 01:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That seems a reasonable suggestion. I have amended the final section heading. Brianboulton (talk) 09:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support, a fine job done on prose, and well-rounded comprehensive article with background and interpretation. Very little to correct or improve. The only slightly odd sentence is below: Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

..but finally wise as shown by the undisclosed counsel which they give to Brünnhilde. --> shown or revealed as wise? As it stands it sounds like they became wise (no biggie).

You're right. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support Excellent work. I see a couple very minor nitpicks that I might comment on later. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - without even a tweak from me! Well done. Graham Colm ^Talk 10:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support after the notes and references are fixed This is a well-written, well-researched, beautifully-illustrated article about the Rhinemaidens. I have a few prose nitpicks, but most of my comments relate to the notes and references, which need to be cleaned up. I'm sorry that I can't fix more of these, but I don't use these templates, so I am unfamiliar with their fields.

• The Hesperides myth tells of three maidens who guard the golden apples of Arcadia, a scenario clearly reminiscent of the core Rheingold themes of guardianship and gold - The "theme of gold" sounds a bit strange.
  • I don't know how to make this clearer. "Guardianship", and "gold", are themes in the Hesperidean myth and in Das Rheingold. They are at the core of the latter. I could say: The Hesperides myth tells of three maidens who guard the golden apples of Arcadia, a scenario which has aspects in common with the story told in Das Rheingold, but would that be an improvement? Brianboulton (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
    • No, I don't think that would be an improvement. What about something like "the search for gold" or "the desire for gold"? (I don't know the Ring cycle (gasp!), so I'm just guessing here. Awadewit (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Neither of these suggestions are appropriate to the Ring cycle, so I reckon it'll have to stay as it is. If I get a late inspiration I'll bring it forward. Brianboulton (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
        • If I may make a suggestion, how does "Similarities exist between the Arcadian maiden guardians in the Hesperides myth and the Rhinemaidens of Das Rheingold; three females guard a highly desired golden treasure that would end up stolen in the telling of each tale." sound? Jappalang (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
          • Pretty good, but not "end up" as far as the Ring story is concerned; the golden treasure ends up back where it started. I'd go for it with "is" in place of "would end up". Brianboulton (talk) 14:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
            • That sounds good to me.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
              • I've gone with that. Now wait for a Hesperides expert to say: "Ah, but..." Brianboulton (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Some Wagner scholars have suggested that he may be a "Supreme Being", father of Wotan, all the gods and all creation. - I feel like the series of commas becomes confusing here - I can't quite parse out what the sentence means and where the and's should go.
  • Fixed to say: "...a "Supreme Being" who is father to Wotan and al the gods—indeed, of all creation". Brianboulton (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Don't the direct quotations in "Role in the Rings Operas" need citations to specific pages?
  • I didn't know about this until you told me yesteday during another review. I bow to your greater knowledge on things like this, so I have fixed them all. Brianboulton (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• In a remote wooded valley where the Rhine flows, the ageless Rhinemaidens continue to mourn for the gold, pleading with the "Sun-woman" to send them a champion who will give them back the gold - "give" or "win"?
  • "give": sende uns dem Helden, der das Gold uns wieder gäbe

• From the first complete production of the Ring, at the Bayreuth Festspielhaus in 1876, it was established that the Rhinemaidens should be depicted in conventional human form, rather than as mermaids with fishtails or other supernatural features - Do all mermaids have fishtails? Do we need to say "mermaids with fishtails"? Also, are fishtails supernatural features? Are they only supernatural when they appear on mermaids? This sentence just reads a bit strangely.
  • Simplified to "...as mermaids, or with other supernatural..." Brianboulton (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Note 8 should use the author's name, not "author of such-and-such book"!
  • This citation is redundant; full details of Sabor's book are in the sources. Brianboulton (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• The Cooke footnotes should be distinguished by year (i.e. Cooke (1979) and Cooke (1967)) not by Cooke (audio).
  • I have put in the dates as requested, but I think it right that Cooke's recorded introduction - the audio - should be identified as such. Brianboulton (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I fixed the last two. Awadewit (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• All newspapers listed in the notes should be italicized.
  • Done Brianboulton (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Footnote 55 needs to be rewritten since the reference is a book with publication information and an author - it is not a website.
  • Done Brianboulton (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
    • The note should simply say "Randel p. 210", if Randel is the author of the entry. Awadewit (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Randel is the editor. The author's name is not revealed. Brianboulton (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Alleyne ref, Daily Telegraph should be italicized since it is the name of a newspaper.
  • Done Brianboulton (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Gutman ref - the ISBN is missing some numbers, I think.
  • Fixed Brianboulton (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Henahan - New York Times should be italicized
  • Done Brianboulton (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Miller, Philip Lieson. "Matzenauer, Margaret(e)" in The Grove Book of Opera Singers. Ed Laura Macy. Sourced from Oxford Reference Online. - several problems here - "in" should not be italicized; "Ed. Laura Macy" should not be italicized; what is the date of publication? even online publications include the date

• On this, I've now learnt a lot more about the parameters of the cite book template and have fixed the specific issues raised. I obviously can't supply a page ref as I accessed it online. The footnote on the entry says:

How to cite this entry:

Philip Lieson Miller "Matzenauer, Margaret(e)" The Grove Book of Opera Singers. Ed Laura Macy. Oxford University Press, 2008.Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. South Bank University. 25 October 2008 <http://0-www.oxfordreference.com.lispac.lsbu.ac.uk:80/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t262.e978>

I don't think I should include my university name or the web address that identifies my university, but do you want the access date mentioned or ORO italicised in our ref?--Peter cohen (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to butt in but, provided we give all the salient info, do we have to follow their citation format? I never have done in the past, in similar circumstances. Also, I'm a bit worried that citation [58] just reads "Miller". Can this be a bit more specific?Brianboulton (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a one paragraph article, so there is no possibility of a page reference or other qualifier. We could put in a year, but at that point we would logically have to do it for all the other references. As for the other stuff, I was asking if Awadewit, or anyone else for that matter, wanted an access date given when no web address willl be given.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

We've fixed this, by agreement, using the "cite encyclopedia" template which seems most appropriate in these circumstances. Brianboulton (talk) 21:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Might I mention that this is why the cite templates are so terrible? It is very difficult to include all of the necessary information in them, I find. This entry is still missing the editor's name and the "Oxford Reference Online" bit. Awadewit (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I copied the template exactly from the saintly Ealdgyth's Robert of Jumièges article, thinking "How can this possibly be wrong?" Oh Gawd! I'll do what I can to fix the problem.Brianboulton (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Mowatt ref - Is Mowatt the translator, too? There needs to be some sort of translator field.
  • There's no "too" about it - the Nibelungenlied are ancient German myths, translated in this edition by Mowatt. I have added (trans) to his name in the source. There is no translator field in the cite book template. Brianboulton (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)t
• Weber, W - New York Times needs to be italicized
  • Done Brianboulton (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Havard Biographical Dictionary of Music has an author and publication information - it is not a web source. Please rewrite the ref.
  • Done Brianboulton (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
    • This is now missing the name of the entry, however, and, if the author of the entry if different from the editor of the dictionary, the name of that entry's author. It is also missing the publication location: Cambridge. Awadewit (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Too tired to look just now, will fix later. Brianboulton (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
        • (Later) I have added what I can to this and to the Miller source, above. There is no more information - we do not know the name of the author of the Dernesch entry. Brianboulton (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
          • I hate templates so much! Why is the editor's name italicized in the Miller entry? Awadewit (talk) 15:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
          • Try the "book chapter" template for Randel - that might fix things. Randel is the author of the entire book as well as the "chapter". (If you weren't using templates, I could have fixed all of these in five minutes.) Awadewit (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
            • It seems I've been acting on the wrong assumption that Randel was the editor of the Harvard book and that individual entries were by others. He is indeed the author of the book, and all the entries, including that for Dernesch on p. 210. So we need only the ordinary cite book template, which gives author, year, title, location, publisher and IBSN. This I have done, in the Sources section. The inline citation is, as you suggested some while back, "Randel, p. 210". Brianboulton (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
              • I just give up on this. This should really cite the name of the entry as well, but whatever. We are at the point of diminishing returns here. Awadewit (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
                • Say not the struggle naught availeth. I find there is a "chapter=" feature in the cite book template, so we now have the name of the entry in the source. Brianboulton (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

These shouldn't take long to fix at all. Awadewit (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your meticulous attention to detail, which helps enormously to build the quality of the articles you review. Also for your kind words and support. Brianboulton (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You know, that is exactly how I think of you, too. Wow, imagine what we could do if we teamed up! (By the way, I obtained a Trivial Pursuit pie piece because of reading your polar expedition articles!) Awadewit (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Should you find that Shelley had a secret career as a polar explorer, and/or sang opera in his spare time, I'm your man. Brianboulton (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Does Frankenstein count? There are lots of polar scenes in that. Awadewit (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Image review

• Image:1876Rhinemaiden machinery.jpg - This image's copyright tag is claiming that it is in the PD because it was published before 1923. However, the source information does not make that clear. Can we have the publication information that establishes that claim?
  • Peter will have to confirm this, but I imagine that the sketch was dated as from 1876 in the ROH Guide from which it is taken. I don't know what other information is given. Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Was the ROH Guide published in 1876? That piece of information should be included in the "source" field. Awadewit (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The rest of the images seem fine to me. Awadewit (talk) 13:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• • • • Sorry about the delay. I'm having to do some real work. I've probably used the wrong tag. Every other photo in the book is sourced either to an individual or an organisaiton and this one is not. It's just described as contemporary The publication from which the photo is taken is copyright 1985. So, even with the extension from death+50 to death+70, its being out of copyright then should mean its being out of copyright now. The picture researcher for the book, Henrietta Bredin, is now active with The Spectator. So we could try to contact her as to where she found the picture.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
        • I fixed the tag. Awadewit (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
          • Thanks! Brianboulton (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
            • And Thanks from me too.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - I peer reviewed the article, and although I am not a Wagner fan, I found it informative, well researched and well written. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

sourcing question about possible addition I know that Brian is wary of the danger of things getting rather prose listy in the paragraph about singers who have played Rhinemaidens. However I would be interested in mentioning Lotte Lehmann and/or Elisabeth Schumann, two of the biggest names of the inter-war years. One or both could join Joan Sutherland in the sentence on interpretators away from Bayreuth: - I think it will look better with more than one such case being mentioned. Would reviewers regard pages at the Lotte Lehmann foundation [4] [5] and/or a referenced page at the Elisabeth Schumann Website [6] as reliable?

Fyi Jappalang has suggested bringing the question here in an answer [7] to almost the same question at the article talk page . Jappalang's provisional view was yes to LL, no to ES.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

While I don't mind the addition of accurate and properly sourced information, the danger here relates to the balance of this section. We claimed fair use for the Covent Garden image on the grounds that this section was essentially about the history of the staging of the Rhinemaiden scenes, and that the image was important to that understanding. The last paragraph, which lists the performers, is not about staging; if we extend the para with more and more examples, the focus of the section will change. However, I don't own this page, but could I request caution - one name only added? Brianboulton (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.