Talk:Agrippina (opera)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Comment

Secco - I'm pretty sure recitative secco means that it is accompanied only by continuo, without obbligato instruments, not by only one member of the continuo group. That's what I was trying to indicate with my last edit, which Moreschi reverted-ish. Mak (talk) 01:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the problems surrounding recitative have been fixed. By the way, could someone please fix the formatting for the "Roles" section? I meant it to be like Owen Wingrave, but clearly went wrong somewhere. Then off to GA? Cheers, Moreschi 16:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

O.K, I've fixed that, but now the darn thing's out of alignment. I'm getting fed up. Moreschi 18:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks fine to me (firefox on a mac). What exactly is the trouble? Mak (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

"Juno" is a little above "Contralto" - Firefox on Windows. Moreschi 18:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Huh, I don't see it. Did what I just did help? Mak (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

YES!! It's now perfect! What on earth did you do to fix that? Moreschi 19:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC) (Oh, and BTW are we O.K for GA?)

Cool! I just changed the vertical alignment from "top" to "bottom". Go for that GA baby! Mak (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I came here to GA review, but ended up doing a complete copyedit instead. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you review it anyway, please? Nightmare visions arise of me reviewing 21 articles just to get this reviewed. Moreschi 20:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Weel, I suppose I can give my opinions:

1. Well-written, well-structured: Could still be a bit better, IMO: for instance, a nice fact about Diamante Scarabelli would round off the opening nicely. Still, I'd probably pass it.
2. Accurate and verifiable: Too much use of one source. Add in secondary sources and fill in a few blanks.
3. Broad in coverage: I suspect adding a few more sources will improve this: It's not bad, though.
4. NPOV: Pass
5. Stable: Pass
6. Images: Pass

In short, it wants a few more sources, and a bit more rounding off of information ideally. But it's at the least near-GA. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

All right, I'll go to the library next week (maybe tomorrow if I have the time, but I'm off-wiki from Monday to Friday) and get some stuff out of Grove. That should address most of your complaints. Thanks for the copy-edit! Moreschi 21:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Note to other GA reviewers: if you come across this article before Friday and you think there are issues to address please put the article on hold and I'll be back on Saturday to sort out the problems. Moreschi 13:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

GA Review

I haven't put the article on hold, but I will review it here. While this is a very good start to the article and close to GA material, I cannot support it for GA. Here's why:

• The lead should summarize the article. There is information in the summary that is not found in the body of the article, especially regarding the initial performance date and Grimani.
• Much of the body of the article could be expanded and reorganized. Start with why Handel was in Italy and what he did there prior to writing this opera. This would give historical background on the actual writing. Then move onto the work itself. Discuss the libretto first. (I would be interested to know more about the librettist and his motivations for writing the work. Also, how did he and Handel meet?) Next, move on to the music and possibly discuss the origins of some of the better known arias as well as which ones are original to this piece. Next comes information on the first performance including the list of who played what. Here, some information on the singers would be interesting. Some of them should have bios in Groves.
• Following all this should be a brief synopsis. Your synopsis is almost as long as the rest of the article. I would recommend a paragraph per Act. This should only cover the major plot points and include the major arias (i.e. So-and-so did yadda-yadda (Aria)). Additionally, the libretto should be cited and appear in the reference list.
• A discussion of influence should come next. Here you can discuss Handel's cannibalisation of this opera in his other works. Did the opera have any influence over works by others? These should be mentioned as well.
• A critical discussion of the opera is needed. How was the opera recieved in it's first performances? What do modern critics have to say about it?
• Finally, a performance history and discography should be included. Indeed you may also discuss the merits of these performances and recordings. For performances, the name of the company, director and major singers should be included. Same with recordings.

I think this is a very admirable start to this article and certainly better than many articles on GA. I know this is a great deal of work, but in the end, I think this could be FA material. There is one source that may be helpful: I don't have it at hand, but I believe it is the Oxford Guide to Handel's Operas. I think that's it's, though I may be wrong about the Oxford part. Additionally, any of Handel's biographies should have information on the writing and performance of the opera. I shall have some time this weekend if you would like some help on this. Just leave a note here. Cheers! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 18:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Constructive criticism is always great. Right, let's see.

• I'm not sure about this at all (see The Fairy-Queen), but I'll see what I can do.
• Point 2: Fair enough, that's perfectly valid and I'll set to work. The only thing that's faintly dodgy there is dicussing the origins of some of the better-known arias. None of the arias are terribly well-known (this opera is pretty obscure), and I do say that "Ho un non so che" comes from La Resurrezione, which is probably the best known aria. I have said which singers took what roles at the first performance in the "Roles" section. Info on the singers, fine - but surely that should go in their own individual stubs/articles, no? And there is some info already on Durastanti, Scarabelli, and Carli.

Here I think a few interesting details about the singers should suffice. Indeed, information that would also be mentioned in their stubs.

• Synopsis - arrgh! I don't know how much you know about opera, but opera seria plots are notorious for grotesque complexity. Personally, I thought I did rather well to keep it down to what it is now.That was precisely the reason as to why I didn't cite individual arias in the synopsis: it takes up a lot of space and there are a hell of a lot of them - opera at this time consisted of lots of arias, although usually pretty brief.

It's the complexity that really makes the synopsis hard to read. I've done enough operas to understand the complexity, but I can tell I don't have the patience to read and understand a complex plot summary nor do I think most readers have it either. Perhaps outline the main plot and then minor plots? If you think it's necessary I can live with it, though.

• Influence - err, I can't really find anything that says Agrippina had a huge influence. Obviously it displayed his assimilation of the Italian model, but that's already in the article.
• I've already said how Agrippina was received - it established Handel's reputation - but I'll hunt around and see if I can find any online archive reviews. No promises, though - it ain't performed too often.

Not only how it was received by critics who have seen productions of it, but how have modern historians and writers spoken of it?

• Again, I'll see what I can do.
• And thanks for the kind words!! I'm glad you think that this has potential. Moreschi 21:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing my points. If you need any further assitance, please don't hesitate to ask. Cheers!*Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 22:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

OK to add this to intro?

Hello, the current intro ends with the sentence:

The narrative tells the story of Agrippina, the mother of Nero, as she plots the downfall of the Roman Emperor Claudius.

Would it be OK to make this "(...)Claudius and the installation of her son as emperor.", or would that spoil the story? Thanks. --Kyoko 01:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds fine, and is probably common sense as well. I wouldn't worry about ruining the story. The synopsis will do that for them, and who on earth is going to go an opera in Italian without knowing something of the plot in advance. Cheers, Moreschi 21:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

GA review (comment)

Hello,

It's obvious that you've put a lot of work into this article. I'm impressed.

I noticed that most of your references are formatted as are <ref>Dean</ref>. Another way to do this would be to make the very first citation a named reference that includes the full info about the book, and then give following ones have the same name:

blah blah <ref name="Dean">Winton Dean. Humour with Human Commitment: Handel's "Agrippina" (1997). Brief essay to accompany Gardiner recording</ref> blah blah Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit<ref name="Dean" />

To give you an idea of how it looks, I reformatted three references to Grove Online. Look in the Notes section for "Anthony Hicks" etc. to see what it looks like. If the style doesn't suit you, the revert my edits.

Thanks --Ling.Nut 06:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this style is that if you (or anyone else) shifts around the text with the references, you get a big giant error message, and it also works very poorly for giving page numbers for dead tree sources. Just my two cents, I don't think it adds much, and is more of a pain than a help. Mak (talk) 06:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

However, it only pays attention to the first one's text, so:

blah blah <ref name="Dean">Winton Dean. Humour with Human Commitment: Handel's "Agrippina" (1997). Brief essay to accompany Gardiner recording</ref> blah blah Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit<ref name="Dean">Winton Dean. Humour with Human Commitment: Handel's "Agrippina" (1997). Brief essay to accompany Gardiner recording</ref>

Works fine, and is text-move proof. Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

... this isn't my preferred method of citation/reference (Harvard style is), but I was just keeping consistent with their use of Cite.php. As the previous editor said, you can put the full text in every ref if you choose. --Ling.Nut 13:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but Adam, that completely obfuscates the rest of the wiki-text. What the heck is wrong with using cite.php with simple names and page numbers inside? The FA reviewers didn't have a problem with it for Concerto delle donne, so I really don't understand why the GA reviewers are so pedantic about it. Inlines are given, full references given in the "References" section, page numbers are there, it doesn't make it completely impossible to read in the wiki-text, it's not actually against any policies or guidelines. Mak (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Per Mak: if it's good enough for the on-main-page FA Concerto delle donne, it's good enough for this. Moreschi 18:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but Page numbers are NOT given for the Dean, and so it looks awkward, seeing "Dean, Dean, Dean, Dean....."

Recording booklets tend not to have that many pages. Moreschi 20:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

True, but it does mean they'd look better compacted into one. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"Looking exactly the way Adam wants it to regardless of applicable policies and guidelines" is not actually a GA criterion. Mak (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

GA Review: 429 hits on Google scholar

Hi,

This opera has 429 hits on Google scholar. There's no reason to have so few secondary sources, one of which is cited so many times.

Thanks, --Ling.Nut 23:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This is going for GA, not FA. Is it verifiable to a reliable source? Yes. It is. Check. Follows Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Mak (talk) 03:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Winton Dean is reputable, full stop. For that matter, he's the one whose written all the stuff on Italian opera of this time in my library's edition of Grove. This is GA, not FA.Moreschi 15:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it would be surprising to find an article like this without loads of references to Winton Dean. He's the big expert on Handelian opera.--Folantin 15:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• OK point taken this is GA not FA. Point also taken that Dean is the primary authority on the topic. I withdraw my comments about the Dean-Dean-Dean-Deans as formal objections to GA status. Having said that, it looks quite...awkward... and in my opinion significantly reduces the strength of the article as a whole. Drawing long sections entirely from a single source raises questions (see item #11 here). Strongly suggest spending time doing further research. But note that I am not using this as a barrier to GA.
• Thanks --Ling.Nut 02:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

GA Concerns: Redlinks and listy "Roles" section

Please see if it is possible to write at least stubs for all the redlinks. If that cannot be done, please delink them. This helps with criterion 3, breadth of coverage. Please also trim or prosify the "Roles" section, which will help conform with criterion 1(c). -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 02:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again, GA, it's not the responsibility of someone who wants to write a GA to fill in great swathes of coverage in the encyclopedia. Moreschi has linked things which ought to have articles. It's not his fault that most of the prepubescent boys on WP are more interested in writing Professions (World of Warcraft) than about important Baroque operas. Red links are not a bad thing. The roles section follows the guidelines put forward by the Opera Project, as seen at WP:WPO#Templates. The point of GA is that an article doesn't have to be absolutely perfect to get some amount of recognition as better than the last bit of fancruft the cat dragged in. Mak (talk) 03:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, and I'm trying to be civil, but this is getting not a little ridiculous. I'm writing an article about the opera, not the singers in it, information on most of which is already mentioned in the article. Redlinks are positively a good thing: they encourage newbies to start writing when they see that no one else has. Anyway, Durastanti and Pellegrini have stubs that I'll expand, and I'll do one for Scarabelli, but that's as far as it goes. The Boschis are borderline notability anyway: they might have sung in one other Handel opera, but then again they might not, which I saw on some website somewhere. Quite apart from anything else neither of them seem to have been great singers, as their music is dead easy by Baroque standards. I'm afraid I do have better things to do with my life than write about that pair of married mediocrities. I'll leave that for someone who's memorised Grove.

Listy? That's just crazy. Virtually every single opera WP article has these lists. If people actually bothered to read Wikipedia:Embedded list I wouldn't have to write this. There is no reason to prosify this: this list is identical to that cited as praiseworthy:" Tables of information and short lists can also complete articles, e.g. Prime Minister of the United Kingdom describes the function of the office and includes a list of past prime ministers, Politics of Germany presents an overview of the topic and includes a list of current ministers and a short list of German political parties.". This is a brief table of information that helps complete the article, and as such is not problematic. Would you really want to read a long-winded, dull and confusing prose version - which would be unavoidable? Please. Look at The Fairy-Queen - perhaps its list justifies a removal from GA? Moreschi 15:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Lists of roles and lists of numbers are absolutely standard when talking about any stage work. There's none on wikipedia that do it in prose, as far as I know. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Kindly improve the formatting of the lists in this section, and it will be fine. Perhaps a table, to correlate each role with its actor and singing voice? Please also assume good faith: I am simply looking at this issue from the perspective of our readers, many of whom may find the current formatting confusing. And again to clarify, I am not requesting one editor write stubs for the several redlinks. Simply evaluate whether they can support articles at all. Thank you. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 01:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Erm, as far as I can see it is a simple table, which one reads from left to right, correlating each role with its originator and voice part. I don't see what's confusing about the format. Do you mean you'd prefer if there were pretty colors in the table? It shouldn't surprise any of us that Baroque opera is not as filled-in as other areas of the 'pedia, so it's not surprising that there are a number of redlinks. Please remember that GA is not supposed to be about nit-picking details which are not essentially about content. Mak (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It's entirely possible that we just aren't seeing the same table; of course I do not prefer color, I prefer a format that aids in understanding the content. As it is probable that we likely will not understand each other no matter how "clear" or "civil" we each think we are being, I will drop the concern and not bother you further. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 01:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see what it is, I just checked on safari logged out, it's because the superscript notes are messing up the line spacing. I have a thing that fixes that for me, but it's not in the main css or whatnot. Got it. If I knew how to fix it I would. Mak (talk) 01:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I still can't see a problem: it looks fine to me with both Firefox and IE on Windows XP. Maybe I could change the list format to that, say, at Alina, regina di Golconda? This might be less problematic. Best, Moreschi 10:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you look at it logged out? You might have the fix in your monobook or .js or whatever that fixes it whenever you're logged in. Mak (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks funny on my browser (some un-updated version of IE). The three sections are out of alignment with each other. --Folantin 17:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I've fixed it. It's such a hack, though. I added a superscript non-breaking space to the end of all the lines so that they'd end up equivilent. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

As part of reviewing the article for GA, I think it is fine in general. I would like to promote it, but in my opinion it needs a gentle but firm cleanup. Here goes some issues that bothered me:

• There is a section called "Context, analysis, and performance history". Such a complex header doesn't explain to me, the reader, what the section is about.
• The first paragraph of that section is 400 words long (I counted). Wouldn't it ease to the reader to break it up into three paragraphs? I think it would. The paragraph following that one is 248 words. Compare it with today's featured article, Star, where no paragraph is longer than 150 words (at least those I checked). This isn't a formality --- reading such long paragraphs especially on a monitor is tiring for the reader.
• For the same reason, some sentences are too long (especially in the "Music" section); paranthesises make them even more diffuse. For example, this is one long sentence, and I do not think it reads easily:

However, several features of Handel's mature style are already beginning to take shape in Agrippina: a contrast between the force of the libretto and the emotional colour of the actual music (an omnipresent feature of Handel's later London operas, best seen here in Otho's "Coronato il crin", where the agitation of the music pulls against the euphoria of the libretto),[17] in Handel's control of the interplay between the music and the drama, and his ability to use the arias, on occasion, to advance the action as well as to delineate character, which was to be important to the success of his later career.

• I'm also unsure whether the footnotes cover the information in the paranthesis?

Ok, those were my opinions on why I do not consider this to be a good article at the moment. As English is not my native language, it is possible that a different reviewer would disagree with me... Anyways, I'm putting the nomination on hold until the things mentioned have been fixed.

Fred-Chess 00:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on, Fred. Your article on Swedish literature achieved GA status even though it still contains passages like this: "One of the rebels of the 1970s were Ulf Lundell (1949–) who abandonded the grass root movement for rock 'n roll. In 1976, he broke through in literature with the debut novel Jack, a beatnik novel that came to representation a whole generation". Yes, your article truly deserves GA status, but a great deal of the prose still needs fixing. Whereas I can't see anything wrong in the examples from "Agrippina" above. There's no obligation to write sentences of Hemingwayesque simplicity on Wikipedia. --Folantin 08:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Swedish literature has a weak language in some parts. I think that for most parts, the language is OK though. Also note that I didn't promote it myself. Anyways, if you want this article promoted, you either have to comply with my suggestions, or wait for a reviewer with a different opinion.

Fred-Chess 16:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Largely fixed, I think. Thanks for helping out with the points. I've broken up the admittedly monster paragraph and have split up that sentence into several shorter ones. The inline cits aren't actually, for the most part, meant to say anything on their own: they just provide confirmation. I don't, however, see as there's a problem with the section header. It's self-explantory: it provides a history of the performances/aria resuscitation, puts the opera into context, and provides a certain degree of analysis. I don't see as that's especially problematic. Anyway, thanks for helping out, and I think most of the style issues have been largely fixed, but I'll go back and see if there's anything particularly awful that I left in. Cheers, Moreschi 17:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I would pass this article for GA status. I have made no major contributions to this page. I do not believe there are any outstanding stylistic problems with it. --Folantin 11:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Please wait a little. I'll ask other GA reviewers. / Fred-Chess 12:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Just in case somebody isn't aware, a Good Article review has opened concerning this article, on the WP:GA/R page. Homestarmy 18:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I must say your last edit on the article didn't inspire much confidence, Homestarmy. See this [1] for a stylistic comparison. --Folantin 19:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

From where i'm standing, the first sentence is a mess, as it has no verb in what I presume is the parenthetical expression at the end. "Agrippina (HMV 6) is an opera seria in three acts by George Frideric Handel, to a libretto by Cardinal Vincenzo Grimani.[1]" "Is" here would be the verb modifying "Agrippina", wheres the preopositional phrase starting with "to" doesn't have any verb involved, which it should in this instance. What, is the opera "sung" to a libretto by Grimani? Is it "dedicated"? I don't know, but I guess I won't be finding out, eh? If editing the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit to correct what one sees as a glaring error is a crime, then I am quite guilty as charged. Homestarmy 21:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. "To a" is an abbreviation of "set to a": I've now included the "set". Moreschi 22:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I've failed this GA because of too much bickering and too little evidency of contructively trying to improve the concerns. You can resubmit if the issues have been addressed. / Fred-Chess 20:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Where is "too much bickering" a criterion for failing a GA? --Folantin 20:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Furthermore, I did not take this to GAR and have you actually seen my last set revisions that sliced up a load of longish sentences? Moreschi 20:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

CTSWyneken's GA Review

Dear Friends:

In my opinion, this article is stable (no signs of edit wars -- at least recently), complete and in accessible language. On the latter, I would prefer shorter sentences because they are easier to read, elimination of red links by simply delinking them for now (we are overloaded with wikilinks IMHO), but none of this would prevent me from listing it. In fact, it lacks problems with passive voice and gerunds that often muddies the language of our GA candidates.

I would, however, like to see work on the references. The inline citations are there in sufficient numbers, but they are not complete in an acceptable sense (author, title, place, publisher, date, page nos. where possible and URLs where online. I'm also uneasy with references to items not easily available in the average library.

Were I the sole reviewer, I would put the article on hold, ask for the references to be improved and offer my skills at a librarian to those writing the article. (I do suspect it would not be hard for me to find suitable sources and honor an interlibrary loan request (a needed copyright fig leaf for me to scan and email a few pages to an article to a patron). If the references are upgraded, I'd support promoting the article. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 22:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review. I'll do the fixes tomorrow GMT/Wikitime - I'm just about done for the day. Just a quick note to say that I've followed the citing format at Concerto delle donne - a "references" section citing all the books/websites used a refs, and then a "notes" section that gives individual cites, with or without page numbers. It would be technically possible for me to add page numbers to the Dean, but probably pointless, as it's only about 3 pages long - just very detailed and thorough. See all round tomorrow, and thanks again for the review. Best, Moreschi 22:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm unaware of what's going on with other articles; I come from the scholarly community. From that perspective, I'd expect that, when I click on the footnote, all the information I need to find a fact, quote or longer discussion is contained in the reference. For me, that's part and parcel of a good article. It's all about getting to the thing quickly. It's not exactly pointless to have page numbers, except in one page pieces and websites of course, because it aids readers, if they ever use the notes, to find the point more quickly. I wouldn't exactly scream if they weren't present, but its just neater to include them. Let me know if I can help you find a source or two. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 12:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe the standard on Wikipedia is more akin to Harvard Citation, except as a footnote, not in-line. Don't ask me why. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Page numbers added for the Dean. I think I've addressed most of Hoary's concerns in the hidden notes, but if you feel my corrections are inadequate then please complain away. Moreschi 17:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

They look fine now. Thank you for the work. I know for most folk this is as plesant as waterboarding! It's not perfect, but it's up to GA standard in my book. If there are no objections, I'll promote it. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 18:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you think it's satisfactory. Waterboarding? Ooh, not that bad. There's something therapeutic about that kind of repetitive grunt work - change cite format - change cite format - change cite format - etc. Thanks again for all the advice/reviewing/suggestions/corrections/comments. Moreschi 18:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)