The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 09:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC).
Can another hook be proposed here? The hook is basically a role hook (i.e. did you know that this person played this role and this role?) I personally thought it was more unusual that an American was performing at a European opera house so an angle involving that may be a better option. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Hundreds of American singers perform in Germany (because Germany has many more opera houses), that's nothing special for him. What's rare is that a tenor is the villain, singing some of the greatest coloraturas ever written, and he is able. I just can't word it in 200 chars. Both these operas are rarely performed so deserve highlighting. Performing in a world premiere is not a role thingy at all, and all three together show off his versatility. I saw him yesterday, - the audience laughed loud (but it was a very minor role). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
The hook is still a role hook because it's basically saying that he performed these roles. The hook is basically "DYK that this person, who appeared in B, appeared in C?". That's probably not a good way to write a DYK hook. For example, we wouldn't allow a hook on DYK that went something like "... that Johnny Depp, who played Jack Sparrow in the premiere film of the Pirates of the Caribbean series, appeared as Willy Wonka in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory?". As you admit, it's hard to word what you want to say in 200 characters so I suggest you move in a totally different direction. DYK isn't meant to be a role database. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
We know that you believe that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Giving different places and repertoire paints a pic of what he can do, - a little bit from his private life would just be trivia. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
You could make it a quirky by just mentioning the mysterious 27, - all the rest is an addition for those who go for a little more information. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't see what's wrong with using trivia as a DYK hook, isn't DYK as a whole essentially trivia? Highlighting unusual or interesting facts about the subject? Sometimes it's better to highlight something a subject is less known for than something they are known for. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Repeating: you can see DYK that way, and do that for "your" hooks, but I want to get at what a subject is able to do, - also for the millions who see the Main page but will not click. I run Recent deaths, and hooks go there once a person dies. I wish Mr. Lebow a long life ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Well, thank goodness we don't have to write a hook about Johnny Depp, because, apart from his film roles (which are interesting, actually - the man can act), all he has of equal interest these days is scandal, and we'd have to write "alleged" after every hook statement. Lebow's roles are also interesting, because the man can sing and act (one more than Johnny Depp, then). How about a hook just about Lebow's nasty Contareno character in Bianca e Falliero? We might have to extend the article to fit, if we can find more reviews for it - but we'd get a clickbait story - and unlike a Depp hook it wouldn't attract litigation. Storye book (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
We might, but why should leave him in the villain corner with this enormous talent for comic acting? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Comic is good. Can you find some information/citations for that? It would be nice to give a little detail about his comic acting/singing? Storye book (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
In any case I don't think the original hook should proceed. If anything, I think a hook focusing on him being a comedic tenor might work better, because I don't think most people associate opera with comedy and so that connection may raise eyebrows at the very least. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:46, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
We'd loose his versatility, and we'd loose the American/German aspect. Did you know that about a quarter of operas are designed as funny, most of Mozart's? There's also Komische Oper and Opéra comique. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm sure most readers do not know that, hence why I think highlighting such a fact (that many operas are actually comedic in nature) would be a good idea. Wouldn't you want to promote that fact considering it's not well-known? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
No. I want to talk about him being from America, singing there and in Germany, in both comic and tragic opera, as the original hook did. - On Wednesday, I actually laughed out loud in an opera performance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
ps: what in "next week perhaps" (above) did you not understand - I am busy RL. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Can you imagine another country where an opera would be called 27. There's a link. What in "next week perhaps" (above) did you not understand ? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Overall: Due to all the discussion above, I had not realised that there was no review here, so I'm doing it now. Notwithstanding the above discussion, there is nothing wrong with the hook. It has 153 characters, it makes clear that it is showing the versatility of the subject (who can do modern, comic and villainous performances), and it breaks no DYK rules. Note that the hook uses the word, "performed": it is all about the ability to perform. The links make it easy for people new to opera to understand the hook. Storye book (talk) 09:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
I thought we were going to wait for a hook about his comedic work and that it would be provided next week. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
If the nominator wants to add another hook next week, that is fine. But the review had to include the existing hook. Storye book (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
I am pulling this nomination from prep for a number of reasons. The primary reason is that the article's final paragraph extolls Lebow's virtues in Wikipedia's voice—these appear to be opinions by reviewers, and the article needs to be clear on this point, not just state them as general fact. (Also, does the merchant have great comic talent or Lebow? Either way, the phrase reads as puffery, and needs rewording unless a quote can be used.) The hook does have problems, so I have struck it: nowhere in the article is it stated that the role in the Rossini is the villain; "choleric" has to do with anger, not villainy. Hook facts must explicitly be in the article. I'm also puzzled by the links to the operas, since they're unhelpful: "Rossini's villain" just goes to the opera's page, with no indication as to the role involved, and a similar situation is true for the Cimarosa. A new hook could be similar, but it needs work. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Fixed Contareno and Sumers sentences in article to make it clear which part the reviewers said, etc. (Was just passing through and noticed.) Cielquiparle (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
And now an ALT hook for you from my box of ALT hooks (which sometimes make the original hook(s) seem better):
I approve ALT1. The hook facts appear clearly in the article, and are confirmed in the citation at the end of the same paragraph (that citation covers the whole para). I don't agree with above objections to "role hooks"; in fact the idea of someone playing Picasso and Scott Fitzgerald in an opera is hooky anyway, because those are both admired by many, and are well-known to be strong characters. I have linked Picasso's and Scott Fitzgerald's names, in the hook. Storye book (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Cielquiparle for the corrections to the article and for the ALT1. The comments are no longer apparently the opinion of a WP editor, but are now clearly attributable to a cited critic. This situation has now been repaired, and the nomination looks OK to me, now. Storye book (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Can another hook be proposed here? The hook is basically a role hook (i.e. did you know that this person played this role and this role?) I personally thought it was more unusual that an American was performing at a European opera house so an angle involving that may be a better option. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Due to all the discussion above, I had not realised that there was no review here, so I'm doing it now. Notwithstanding the above discussion, there is nothing wrong with the hook. It has 153 characters, it makes clear that it is showing the versatility of the subject (who can do modern, comic and villainous performances), and it breaks no DYK rules. Note that the hook uses the word, "performed": it is all about the ability to perform. The links make it easy for people new to opera to understand the hook. Storye book (talk) 09:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
I am pulling this nomination from prep for a number of reasons. The primary reason is that the article's final paragraph extolls Lebow's virtues in Wikipedia's voice—these appear to be opinions by reviewers, and the article needs to be clear on this point, not just state them as general fact. (Also, does the merchant have great comic talent or Lebow? Either way, the phrase reads as puffery, and needs rewording unless a quote can be used.) The hook does have problems, so I have struck it: nowhere in the article is it stated that the role in the Rossini is the villain; "choleric" has to do with anger, not villainy. Hook facts must explicitly be in the article. I'm also puzzled by the links to the operas, since they're unhelpful: "Rossini's villain" just goes to the opera's page, with no indication as to the role involved, and a similar situation is true for the Cimarosa. A new hook could be similar, but it needs work. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Cielquiparle for the corrections to the article and for the ALT1. The comments are no longer apparently the opinion of a WP editor, but are now clearly attributable to a cited critic. This situation has now been repaired, and the nomination looks OK to me, now. Storye book (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)