Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rinaldo (opera)/archive1

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 Laser brain 20:06, 15 February 2011 [1].

---

Rinaldo (opera)

Rinaldo (opera) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Rinaldo (opera)/archive1

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

"Handel cuts castratos' parts!" was the sensational 1731 headline, announcing the great composer's revisions to his popular opera Rinaldo. (Actually, I made that up, though I think the papers missed a fine opportunity there.) Rinaldo, Handel's first London opera, was premiered on 24 February 1711; the object of expanding this article has been to have it as TFA on its tercentenary, a mere fortnight away. The date is still open at present, though there are other worthy TFA candidates requesting the same date, but there's still a slim hope that this can get through FAC in time for Raul's final decision. The work of bringing a very modest start-class version to something of plausible FA quality has been assisted by many willing hands (see the peer review); I would especially mention User:4meter4, whose initial idea it was to go for the tercentenary date and who has made unstinting efforts to locate useful source material. TFA considerations aside, Rinaldo is an historically important opera and one of Handel's early masterpieces. Brianboulton (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Here are some issues: Support! The article is brilliant. Ozob (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "Further operas, now lost, followed; Nero, derived from Monteverdi's L'incoronazione di Poppea, was staged only a month after Almira, but was a failure." Is Nero lost? Or was it just the first one he wrote after Almira?
    • Yes to both. The music and libretto to Nero is now lost and it is the opera composed by Handel immediately after Almira. I think the sentence is fine as is.4meter4 (talk) 03:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Nevertheless, I have tweaked it in the cause of greater clarity. Brianboulton (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "Before leaving Hamburg Handel composed an opera of immense length which was performed, long after the composer's departure from the city, as two separate pieces, Der beglücke Florindo and Die verwandelte Daphne. Fragments of the music from these works have been identified in later operas." When were these two pieces performed? Were they ever performed together as Handel originally intended? And, are they really relevant to the history of Rinaldo?
    • The two operas premiered on successive days in January 1708 in Hamburg at the Theater am Gänsemarktand. They were intended to be performed one after the other. Due to the length, they could not be performed on the same day. I think they deserve mention, but no more than what has already been given. Brian has briefly covered all of the operas composed by Handel prior to Rinaldo, thereby giving the reader a good understanding of his background as an opera composer prior to composing Rinaldo. See List of operas by Handel.4meter4 (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
      • A mention of these operas is relevant to the history of Rinaldo, in that they tell us something of Handel's background as an opera composer. The object of this Background section is to provide an outline resume of Handel's career before he wrote Rinaldo, but not to discuss or analyse individual works in detail. Opinions may differ as to appropriate levels of detail or selections of information, but in general I feel that the detail here is appropriate. Brianboulton (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Maybe it would be better if the first paragraph of background contrasted Handel's early German style with his later Italian style.
    • Comparisons can not easily be made here, considering that Almira is the only surviving opera from Handel's German period and we can only rely on what little Handel's contemporaries recorded about his other early operas. Even Rodrigo, his first Italian opera, does not survive in whole. An indepth comparison is really not possible. The "German style" at that time was eclecticism. Germany hadn't developed its own distinct form of opera yet and basically combined elements of both French opera (ie Tragédie en musique) and Italian opera (ie opera seria) for their works. Librettos were often taken from French and Italian productions and then translated into German and reset to music. Often only the recitatives were translated into German and the arias were still performed in Italian and French. The Germans would also insert plays and ballets (the latter in the French tradition) into the middle of their operas. Handel's trip to Italy basically schooled him in the formal structure of the Opera seria genre which was in vogue in Italy at that time. I agree that some more clarity could be given here, but only in general terms in maybe one or two sentences. This should remain a general background section. 4meter4 (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I think my objections here can be solved by cutting out some extraneous detail. I think the last half of the first paragraph, beginning at, "Further operas, now lost," should be replaced by something that's a little less specific: By being specific about Nero, Der beglücke Florindo, and Die verwandelte Daphne, the article sets up the reader into thinking that those operas somehow have some vital importance to the development of Rinaldo. I would rather that the article said something like:

        "Handel composed more operas in the German style, but all of these are now lost. However, fragments of the music from these lost works have been identified in later operas." That way the article doesn't stray from the topic of Rinaldo

        • I am happy to accept this suggestion, and have adopted it Brianboulton (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "Handel's first Italian opera, Rodrigo, showed an incomplete absorption of Italian influences, with much of Hamburg's musical manners still evident"—how so? What was Handel still doing in the German style?
    • In my opinion this is content that goes beyond the scope of this article. This is supposed to be a general background section and not an indepth analysis of Rodrigo. This sort of information belongs in the Rodrigo article and not the Rinaldo article.4meter4 (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I disagree. That section of the article is about Handel's transition from the German style to the Italian style. Here's an example of what I mean: The previous sentence says, "From these composers and from the singers and performers whom he met, Handel learned the essential characteristics of Italian music ..." and the article then lists a bunch of things that changed between his German and Italian periods. And after such a detailed quote, the "incomplete absorption" sentence is terribly vague. I'm hoping for about half a sentence on what Handel did differently with Rodrigo. E.g., "Handel's first Italian opera, Rodrigo, had Italian style orchestration but German style recitatives." (I just made that up, I don't know whether it did or didn't.) That way the article shows more smoothly Handel's development.
        • I see what you mean. I have added a sentence at the beginning of the section outlining the nature of early 18thC German opera, and it would be useful, I agree, to have a linking half-sentence here. Your guesswork is pretty good, actually, but I will seek a more definitive wording that I can ref to a source. Brianboulton (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
          • (Later) After a review of the sources, there is nothing that goes much beyond Boyden's comment that Rodrigo followed the Keiser/Hamburg template. I have made a few minor adjustment to the prose, but can't go further. Brianboulton (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
            • OK, if that's all the sources say, then it's fine as is. Ozob (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "This sudden recognition gave him several options as to the next stage of his career." What was the next stage of his career going to be? From the next paragraph, it sounds like he was seeking new employment. Why?
    • Unfortunately, next to nothing is known about Handel's life during his sojourn to Naples which consumed more than a third of his time in Italy. He had no known employer during this time and so this is a question that really can't be answered. One of the few things we do know about this period is the tremendous success of Agrippina, which unquestionably caused him to devote the next 32 years of his life to composing operas in the Italian style. 4meter4 (talk) 04:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
      • If it's not known why he left Italy, then the article should say that.
        • Quite simply, if a person achieves success his/her services are likely to be in demand, which gives that person career options. Composers in the early 18th century were always on the lookout for appointments, with theatres or, more particularly, with one or other of the royal Courts. Because of the success of Agrippina, Handel was in the fortunate position of being able to choose his next employment, and to obtain terms that gave him considerable freedom. Brianboulton (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
          • I'm still not convinced that "several options" sounds quite right; "options" would make more sense if the article went on, "Prince Ludwig wanted Handel, but so did Duke XXX and King YYY...". Then the reader finds out what Handel's "options" were. Or you could avoid leaving the reader wondering about "options" by saying something like, "This sudden recognition put him in great demand." Ozob (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
            • One source refers to "several options", another says "there was keen competion for his services". Handel's career options are not the subject of this article, and I see no need to enumerate them. I don't honestly see much difference between your suggested sentence and mine, and I really think this is a non-issue but as the word "options" evidently upsets you, I will switch to the other source and refer to the keen competition. Brianboulton (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
              • I would agree that it's a non-issue, but I think that we can do better, and for an article which is as good as this one already is, nothing less than the best is appropriate. I like your change! Ozob (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The transition from the "Background" section to the plot summary is abrupt. It feels to me like it needs a brief paragraph about the time leading up to the premiere: When was the plot finalized, how long did it take to turn it into verse, how long did it take Handel to compose, how were the singers chosen, were there any production snags, etc. I realize that some of these are answered later on, but I think the article would read better if the reader could go chronologically from before the opera was even conceived, up to the first performance—at which point the narrative breaks to give a plot summary—and then into the reception and performance history.
    • I personally prefer the current structure. It's difficult to discuss the formulation of the libretto and the music in a comprenhensive way without first having read a plot synopsis.4meter4 (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Right now, the Background section doesn't even say that the Italian opera Handel was commissioned to write was Rinaldo. The article doesn't anywhere say how Hill came to choose the story for the opera, only that when he did he based it on Gerusalemme liberata. It doesn't anywhere describe the events leading up to the premiere; since the special effects seem to have been so costly and extravagant, I imagine something must be known about them and their development. (If nothing is known about the special effects, then that should be stated somewhere, too.) The time between Handel's engagement to write Rinaldo and the reception of its premiere isn't discussed at all.
        • This form of structure has, after much discussion among involved editors, been adopted for all FA opera articles, for the reasons which 4meter4 has outlined above. I accept that there are other views about this. As to your other comment, Hill's choice of subject, the writing of the libretto and the rapid composition of the work is covered, correctly in my view, in the Compositional history section. I am not sure what you mean by "events leading up to the premiere" - if you will clarify I will see what is available in the sources. Brianboulton (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Well, at the end of the background section, the reader knows the following: Handel was in London at the start of 1711. He had be commissioned by the Queen's Theatre to write an unnamed Italian opera which may or may not have been Rinaldo. Hill hired Rossi to write a libretto based on an unstated scenario of Hill's which again may or may not have been Rinaldo. London audiences were familiar with Italian opera and Handel's "Italian Dialogue" had been well-received, but the unnamed Italian opera Handel was working on would be the first original Italian opera for the London stage.

            Then the article jumps right into the plot. I am not so sure that this is good. Agrippina, The Bartered Bride, L'incoronazione di Poppea, Trial by Jury, L'ange de Nisida, L'Orfeo, and Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria have sections describing the composition history before the plot summary. Tosca and Gianni Schicchi have exactly the style of the Rinaldo article. H.M.S. Pinafore mostly does, too, but there are several long paragraphs where the choice of singers, the sets, costumes, etc. are all described. Thespis actually puts the plot first. (All of these are FAs.)

            Even if you are utterly convinced that the plot should go before the composition history, there is no reason why Rinaldo should not be named as the opera that Handel was working on. Furthermore, the article does not have any information on the staging of the premiere. Later on the article says that "the financial strains of such a grand production led to legal actions against Hill" but it does not say what part of the production was so grand: Special effects, costumes, sets, Handel's fee? I think a description of the grandness of this grand production would fit perfectly between the end of the current background section and the plot summary. Ozob (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

            • • The opera articles with a different structure (I was involved in some of them) were written before the discussions which led to the adoption of this current structure. It remains a matter of divided opinion as to which is best. I am perfectly happy to name Rinaldo in the Background section, as the projected opera that Hill was cooking up and Handel was to work on, although I would suggest that this information is strongly implied by the name of this article. As to the staging, there is not much on this aspect in the sources, even in the exhaustive Dean and Knapp, that helps here, only general comments. Likewise, there is little information about what specific aspects of the production led to Hill's financial problems, only that craftsmen were unpaid. Nevertheless, I will use what is there to formulate a brief sentence to round off the Background. Brianboulton (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
                • If the article already has whatever information is available on the staging and production, then that aspect is fine.

                  I agree that it was strongly implied that Rinaldo was the opera that Hill and Handel were working on. I just felt like it wasn't fully clear; the way it read, it felt possible that there was a missing paragraph that said, "This first try at an Italian opera in London was a failure. Next, Handel turned to what became Rinaldo...". That's not true, of course, but the first-time reader doesn't know that. He doesn't know what to expect at all. What you replaced it with avoids that problem.

                  On the basis of your addition, I've rearranged the last three paragraphs into two. I think the end of the section tells a more coherent now: It follows Handel from Germany to London and describes his and Italian opera's situation in London; then it turns to Rinaldo and describes Handel's commission, his employer Hill, and Hill's plans. The last paragraph is all the more appropriate because it leads naturally into the plot description. Ozob (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

  • "As he hesitates, his companions seek to restrain him, but, confused and angry, Rinaldo nevertheless enters the boat which immediately sails off. Goffredo and Eustazio express astonishment at Rinaldo's behaviour, believing that he has deserted their cause." Why is Rinaldo confused and angry? It sounds like Goffredo and Eustazio don't know why. Does the audience know why?
    • Yes, the audience will know why. Rinaldo is angry at the abduction of his loved one, and confused in the sense of not knowing what is best to do. Hence his hesitation before getting into the boat. The staid Goffredo and Eustazio are shocked by Rinaldo's impulsiveness; they believe that the Christian magician will sort things out. (Warning: don't look for absolute logic in these opera plots - the spectacle was often more important than the storyline). Brianboulton (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I've edited the article on the basis of what you've said here. I think the result is clearer than what was there before. Ozob (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "It is possible that the opera was performed in Dublin in March or April 1715, though according to Dean and Knapp there is no record of such an occasion." Why is it possible? What evidence is there for such a performance?
    • Some commentators have referred to a Dublin performance, though without any specific details - in 1711, not 1715, my error). I have revised the wording and added another ref. Brianboulton (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Altogether, though, it's pretty good! I await your changes. Ozob (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you for interest and for your useful comments. Brianboulton (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
    • OK, I'm out of objections. So, I support! Ozob (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment: As the principal contributor I would like the chance to respond to this discussion - please let me get a word in. Brianboulton (talk) 13:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

(I have now added my comments to the above) Brianboulton (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Probably blindingly brilliant and accurate but as a Wikipedia reader I went straight to the bottom of the page to look for related articles. No navboxes. There must be many articles related to this composer. There should be a composer navbox as well IMO. They are quite simple to produce and improve accessibility, the icing on the cake perhaps. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 03:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Navboxes have nothing to do with FA criteria. However, if you had bothered to look at the top of the page there is navbox to Handel's operas, cantatas, and oratorios right below Handel's portrait.4meter4 (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• My mistake, sorry. I'm not used to seeing navboxes at the top of the page and missed them, the layout at Ludwig van Beethoven is more like what I would expect to see. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

No offence taken. It has long been the practice of the Opera Project, in opera articles, to put the navboxes here. Brianboulton (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Source review

• Earwig's and Coren's tools found no copyvio, and a few spotchecks found no close paraphrasing (although I don't have access to many of the sources)
• In Bibiography, why do the names of two authors link to the article for one author? For example, "Grout, Donald Jay and Weigel, Hermione" as a whole links to the article on Grout
• Why does ref 7 include the date? It's not needed to distinguish the work (as the other work by that author has a co-author)
• Schonberg article requires payment or subscription to read and should be marked as such
• "architectural and baroque splendour" - this quote does not seem to appear in the source
• <The production was "loaned to the Metropolitan Opera for its centennial season by the National Arts Centre of Canada "in deep appreciation of the many years during which Canadians have enjoyed opera from the Met - on tour, on radio and in New York."> - does the quote start at "loaned" or at "in deep appreciation"?
• Why is Oxford Music Online linked only on its third appearance in references?
• I notice that all of the Oxford Music Online links go to the main page - was that a deliberate choice?
• Be consistent in whether you include retrieval dates for online versions of print-based sources
• Page numbers would be good for the newspapers, although the web links are helpful
• A couple of doubled periods and typos ("Columbis University Press"?)
• Formatting for works within a larger work in Bibliography needs editing for consistency
• Why say "subscription required" for ref 49 when you don't include a weblink?

Sources are reliable and scholarly. Good luck! Nikkimaria (talk) 05:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

For "architectural and baroque splendour" read "architectural and sartorial splendour", now corrected. Oxford Music Online is linked to a login page, but I've changed this to a slightly more informative one. Page numbers are given foe newspapers when they are available. All the typos and small fixes done. Thank you for the review. Brianboulton (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I did add the exact article URLs for Oxford Music Online, but this was later removed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment: This looks out of place in the table... can we move it elsewhere? "Conductor: not recorded[17]" Locke'sGhost 06:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• • Probably the "not recorded" should be removed - in other opera articles where there is a role table but the conductor is unknown, the text just says "(Conductor: )". However, the footnote should stay. NB: conductors as we know them now are quite different from conductors before about 1800, see here. --GuillaumeTell 14:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I've done as you suggest, but I don't think it's an improvement. A blank implies we don't know, or haven't found out. "Not recorded" signifies the actual position: there is no certain record of who was in control that night. My guess is that Handel directed the orchestra from the harpsichord, but I can't find a source that confirms this. Brianboulton (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Could we move that footnote into body text somewhere, and delete the bit in the table header? That seems more natural.. Locke'sGhost 23:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
        • I think the note should remain in the table, rather than an unmodified blank, but I have added information to the text. Brianboulton (talk) 08:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
          • I agree with Brian on this. I personally think having "not recorded" in the table looks better.4meter4 (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Support by Ruhrfisch. Fully meets the FA Criteria with a few nitpicks (which do not detract from my support):

• Missing "the"? (parallel construction) In London, by means which are not documented, Handel secured a commission to write an Italian opera for the Queen's Theatre in the Haymarket (it became [the?] "King's Theatre" after King George I's accession in 1714).[13]
• Who wrote this work ("Italian Dialogue")? Handel? Someone else? A short "Italian Dialogue" written in honour of Queen Anne's birthday, had been well received when performed at St James's Palace on 6 February 1711.[11]
• In Synopsis, do we really need both the bullet point "Time: 1099" and the first sentence The year is 1099, and the Crusader army under Goffredo is laying siege to Jerusalem ...? I would lose the bullet point, but it is your call
  • These "Time, Place" headings are recommended by the Opera Project at the atart of synopses, and I have responded to a request from that quarter. I will, however, alter the "The year is 1099..."
• Since "NAC Orchestra" is used in the next sentence, provide NAC here: In July 1982 Horne sang the part alongside John Alexander's Goffredo and Samuel Ramey's Argante, in a National Arts Centre [(NAC)] production in Ottawa designed by Frank Corsaro.

Well done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Image review - all images in the article are free (public domain becasue of age). I wonder if an image of a page of the score might be found? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, and for the images review. I am working on the minor points. Brianboulton (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• All fixed now. Brianboulton (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Support I did a thorough run through of the article at the peer review, which I believe is linked from this page. I gave it another read. The prose is up to par, it seems comprehensive, I saw no problem with the images (as might be expected) , and in all respects it seems FA worthy.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and earlier PR help. I have not linked the PR here, but it can be got via the link on the articl talkpage. It was a thorough review. Brianboulton (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Support. I have three nitpicks, which I present in order of descending importance: Quotation marks are placed both before and after punctuation in the article (i.e. both ." and ".). Does this follow logical punctuation per WP:LQ? Please redraft "On the basis of this freedom, in late 1710 Handel left Hanover for London, possibly on the basis of " to avoid the repetition. Must we have P.H. Lang instead of P. H. Lang? DrKiernan (talk) 12:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Having periods inside and outside quotation marks may or may not follow logical quotation, depending on whether or not the period is in the original source. Ozob (talk) 12:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, DrKiernan, for your support. I will deal with your points in the morning if that's OK. Brianboulton (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

These fixes now all done. Brianboulton (talk) 11:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Support. I'm not sure whether my support counts, since I helped out in preparing this for FA. However, for the record I want to congratulate Brian on a job well done in record time. This is really a wonderful article. It is the most cognizant account of Rinaldo and its history that I have seen anywhere. It will make a fine addition to wikipedia's growing number of FA opera articles. Well done!4meter4 (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Your help in the expansion of the article was much appreciated, and your suppport here is equally welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Support—In places the prose is just beautiful. But why so much redundant wording? I've looked only down to and not including "Roles".

• "Handel went on to dominate opera in England for the next several decades."
• "after 1731 the opera was not staged again for more than 200 years"
• "Much of it is made up of borrowings and adaptations from the operas and other works that Handel composed during his long stay in Italy in 1706–10." + "had" before "composed"?
• "In the years following the work's premiere, Handel frequently introduced ..."
• "The music was in the words, of historian Donald Jay Grout,"—first comma needs to be three words earlier. Fancy quoting from Grout! He was reviled as an inaccurate generaliser in my undergraduate days; but it is a good quote, I must say.
• "where he spent several years furthering his musical education"—sounds like tuition or a college course; would "... years exposing himself to the Italian style" be better? I know it slightly repeats the point made two sentences later, but it could be crafted not to.
  • I find it works if the first phrasing is simply eliminated, so no repeat arises. Brianboulton (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
• "From these composers and from the singers and performers whom he met"
• "the idol of a spoiled and knowledgeable audience" (quote from Lang) ... hmmm ... usually the spoiled are not all that knowledgeable! Just one point: "knowledgeable" occurs in WP's narrative only a few lines later; dissonance with Lang's quote?
• "through the numerous pastiches and adaptations that had been staged prior to that date"
• "This sudden recognition led to keen competition for Handel's future services."
• "A short "Italian Dialogue" written by Handel in honour of"—"he wrote in honour of", to avoid another "Handel".
• "mount" an opera ... first time I quite liked it; second time it stuck out. But maybe it's OK.
• "the 16th century Italian poet"—hyphen.
• to "to

Please keep writing these music nominations. The English WP will soon be known for strength in this field. Tony (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support and comments. I have removed the superfluous wordings you indicate, and have been through the rest of the article for similar occurrences - found and eliminated a few, though your hawk eyes may see more. Brianboulton (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Support see peer review, suggestions taken, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your good work on the peer review which made a number of improvements possible. Brianboulton (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

CommentsSupport - I became aware of Brianboulton's efforts with this article while monitoring the TFAR talk page. I have no background in opera at all (never even been to one), but I'm enjoying reading this wonderful article (and learning some things). A few points:

• "a considerable success when it was premiered on 8 January 1705" - should "was" be removed from here?
  • Either "it premiered" or "it was premiered" will do here. The former is possibly more familiar in American English. Brianboulton (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• "Handel became, says biographer P. H. Lang, 'world famous and the idol of a spoiled and knowledgeable audience' - this read oddly to me. Maybe "says" should be changed to "according to". Maybe this already sounds fine to speakers of British English and so, according to WP:ENGVAR, shouldn't be changed. Just pointing it out.
  • Yes, it's fine. Due to the requirement for attribution, the "according to" formula is already somewhat overused in this (and other) WP articles, and it's good to have some variant phraseology. Brianboulton (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• "This sudden recognition led to keen competition for Handel's services.[11] Among those most keen to employ him" - The word "keen" used repetitively here. Not a big deal, but maybe the second instance could be changed to "interested"?
  • You are right, here; the "keen competition" phrase was a late inclusion, and I overlooked the repetition. This has been fixed. Brianboulton (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• In the Roles table, should the items in the Voice Type column be capitalized? All of the other items in the other columns are capitalized. I'm not familiar enough with opera to know if it is common practice to not capitalize voice types.
  • Lower case is standard for voice types in all opera articles. Caps are used in the other columns for names or to begin senetnces/phrases. Brianboulton (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• Maybe bold "Place:" and "Time:" in the Synopsis?
  • Yes, why not? Done. Brianboulton (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I've read the full article and these are the only things I had questions/suggestions on. Overall, the article is very well written (as judged by someone unfamiliar with the subject genre). --SkotyWA^T_C 03:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, dealt with as above. Maybe this will spark your interest in opera - though I don't suggest that Handel is necessarily the best place to start. Brianboulton (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You've responded to everything. I fully support this article being promoted to FA. The prose are tight and the article is well organized. I learned a bunch reading it. --SkotyWA^T_C 16:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again. Let me know when you get to experience opera first-hand. Brianboulton (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Will do. So far the closest I've come is seeing Phantom of the Opera peformed live. :) --SkotyWA^T_C 06:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Support. I took part in the peer review, and found very little to query then, and I find nothing at all now. An excellent article, well proportioned, beautifully referenced and a credit to the nominator and to Wikipedia. Tim riley (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC

Thanks for these comments and earlier encouragement. Brianboulton (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Since its in the PD, is there any possibility of getting some free sound samples of key music portions of the work? I don't think this would stop it going FA but it is clearly something to thing about. Unfortunately, it appears that copyright (in the States at least) gives groups that perform the work a 50 year copyright on music that otherwise has fallen into the PD, so this may not be as easy as it sounds. If it requires injection of non-free , I wouldn't worry about it. --MASEM (t) 14:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Rinaldo suffers from the fact that there were very few performances of any kind before the 1970s, and no recordings issued until 1979, so finding a PD recording depends entirely on a non-commercial group having recorded it and then renounced their copyright. I have looked in vain. I am not a fan of 30-second clips to illustrate operas, because the music generally needs to be heard within a context. Brianboulton (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I completely understand, and agree that non-free clips aren't as effective as larger segments that could be from free works. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

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