Talk:Fatinitza/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 20:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Will review. Looking forward to it. More soonest. Tim riley (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

I see the Peer Review is still open, which is unusual in a GA nominated article, though not, as far as I can see, actually contrary to WP rules. The following initial comments might just as well appear on that page as on this, but here they are anyway:

• It is unclear whether the article is meant to be in British English or American English:
  • We have the British "recognises" (twice) and the American "analog", "catalog" and "program".
  • We have "premièred" with a grave accent, which one wouldn't expect in American prose, but we have "convinces them to aid" which is an entirely American construction.
  • We have "according to musicologist Andrew Lamb", which without the necessary definite article is either an Americanism or tabloidese.
  • We have both American and British date layouts: January 5, 1876 and 15 March 1879
  • We have the American form of possessive for names ending in "s" – Strauss' rather than Strauss's.
  • We have the modal form (American?) in "until … 1876, von Suppé would never write a full-length operetta" instead of the plain and preferable "until … 1876, Suppé did not write a full-length operetta", and "Suppé would finally try his hand" for "Suppé finally tried his hand". There's another example in the second sentence of "Legacy".
• Première/premiere: need for consistency. Both appear in the article at present.
• When referring to the composer by surname alone it should be "Suppé", and not "von Suppé" (cf. Beethoven, Bismarck, Hindenburg, Karajan et al).

Should all be fixed now. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Now, comments by section:

• Lead
  • A bit thin, it seems to me. Given that the lead should sum up all the important bits of the article you might tell us that Suppé had been at it for 16 years before trying a full-length opera (though see my next comment) and also that the piece played in Paris, London, New York etc.
  • "Fatinitza was the first full-length, three-act operetta by Franz von Suppé" – I'm probably showing my ignorance, but I struggle with this statement. Leichte Kavallerie (1866) is in three acts and according to Boosey and Hawkes lasts 150 minutes, which is on a par with Fledermaus (160 minutes) and La Belle Hélène (150 minutes).

All I can say is that every reliable source I found uses that sort of construction. That version of Leichte Kavallerie says it's a "new musical arrangement by Horst Platen", perhaps it was expanded? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe you're right about the edition. Grove says that the original Leichte Kavallerie is in two acts, and though Suppé is credited with seven three-act theatre pieces predating Fatizina none of them are described as an "Operette" (there are a Lustspiel, a grand opera, a Posse mit Gesang etc). Objection withdrawn. – Tim riley (talk) 12:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• Legacy
  • "Boccaccio (1879), von Suppé's best-known and most popular work" – most popular opera possibly, but I'd bet a modest sum that his best known work is the overture to Leichte Kavallerie.
    • I think you're right. Fixed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • As you name the theatres for Naples and London premieres you might also name that for the New York premiere, as its name is on record (here).
• Recordings
  • "19.." at the beginning has got to be dealt with

Checking this, the ONLY copy Worldcat lists appears to be at the Library of Congress. I'll check the site when it goes back up on Monday, but I may remove this one if it's generally unavailable. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The Library of Congress offers it to be played on their site; I may migrate this here. In any case, the problem's fixed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• References
  • I think you ought to tell your readers when an online site is behind a paywall: the {{subscription}} tag would do the trick for Grove.
    • Think that's all of them. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • "pp. passim" seems otiose and unhelpful for the online refs
    • I've removed it for the Grove.

As you will note, the crucial "Roles" and "Synopsis" sections, attract no quibbles from me. I particularly like the way you indicate links to the German WP articles about three of the singers. I looked very carefully at the inverted commas around and not around "Fatizina" in the synopsis, and I think you have judged the matter precisely.

There is nothing about critical reception, at home or abroad, which I think you ought to mention (though I am aware of note 4 to criterion 3a at Wikipedia:Good article criteria, and wouldn't seek to make this a sticking point.) Please consider these points and we can take the review from there. – Tim riley (talk) 09:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

In all honesty, I'm having a lot of trouble finding any sort of critical reception that's particularly quotable. The New York Times, for instance, managed to talk at great length about it without discussing either plot or music. I'm hoping to try some offline sources tomorrow; they'll be London-focused, but, frankly, this article is already as good or better than pretty much all other sources I've been able to find on the subject so if I fail... I'm not going to be as worried as I might be for a better-documented opera. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, this sinus infection's screwing up offline research for today, but I've nearly finished the list now. I'll expand the lead soon, when I feel a bit better rested (and will also get to James Clark Maxwell asap).

GA

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Bearing in mind what you say about the lack of sources I don't suppose we can look forward to seeing this article progress to FAC, but as to GA I can see no respect in which it fails to meet the GA criteria, and I hereby cut the ribbon. Tim riley (talk) 09:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I do have "day researching Fatinitza in the National Library of Scotland" planned. I'm hoping I can find more in period sources, though it may well be that I won't speak enough German in the end. Still, I'll see what I can do. Thanks for the review! Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)