Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Richard Wagner/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 7

Article Assessment 9: Summing up

Now that the process is over, here are my conclusions:

Assessment has been successful based on the points system created by GuillaumeTell. Specifically:

  • The points system is simple and straightforward to use, and easy to adapt to different categories of articles (operas, directors etc.).
  • If we use the points system, our ratings are similar, but when we rely on the Quality Scale by itself we are less consistent. (The Wagner Project has a number of anomalous articles which are difficult to grade objectively.)
  • Inevitably some assessments fall on different sides of the line and on those occasions extra check ratings are necessary.
  • The basic WP Quality Scale is easy to conceptualize and works well when backed up by the points system. The two are complementary not contradictory.
  • Rating is easier and more accurate when an entire category of articles (composers, operas, singers or whatever) are batched together on the basis of an agreed points system for that particular group. (Randomly rating articles - an opera, then an opera company and then a singer etc. - will lead to inconsistencies.)
  • Assessors should be non (or minimal) contributors in order to be objective and impartial and not offend writers.
  • Assessments should be done by editors with an interest in the subject, but not necessarily experts.
  • Assessments are not (1) a form of examination for assigning merit - their purpose is to assess completeness, nor are they (2) peer reviews which are done less frequently and more thoroughly.

-- Kleinzach 06:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

First, I'm briefly noting that the process is not quite over, as we are waiting for Peter to adjudicate on Siegfried Wagner.
More generally, I agree that this has been a useful trial, and that some of the problems we faced were peculiar to the Wagner Project and unlikely to recur very often within the rest of the Opera Project. Maybe the above can be reworked into a set of guidelines for the roll-out once we've decided on how to proceed from here. I don't disagree with any of the points made, except that the 4th doesn't need the "and not offend writers" at the end.
--GuillaumeTell 17:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Good. Glad we are in agreement. (I've struck out the phrase you didn't like!) I'll rewrite the points above for a posting on the Opera Project and show both of you a draft. (We can do this on our talk pages.) -- Kleinzach 12:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
One thing that struck me this week was how the proportion of marks given for referencing and links is 15% for the opera articles and 10% for the others. It surprises me that we would vary this percentage. .--Peter cohen 18:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Good point. Should we change the opera articles to 10% referencing etc. with synopsis 15%? Or another solution? -- Kleinzach 12:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
15% seems an awful lot for a synopsis, which is basically just paraphrasing Grove, Kobbé, Viking, etc., and/or websites and programme notes that we've harvested.GuillaumeTell 16:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. That's not how I do a synopsis (I'd always use a libretto!) - but I agree with Peter that the proportion of marks given for referencing and links should be the same, so what do you suggest? -- Kleinzach 01:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I normally use a libretto, too, but I still think 15 is too much. How about 15% for referencing etc in all the points tables and reducing the Major Career allocation for people to 20%? --GuillaumeTell 21:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
OK. I have corrected the points schemes on the Wagner assessment page on that basis. -- Kleinzach 02:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
On the same subject, we need to agree on which categories of articles that have not been dealt with here and which have the Opera Project banner could usefully be assessed with a points system, and what those points systems might be, before unleashing the whole thing on the Project for discussion. Maybe some of our sandbox pages? --GuillaumeTell 16:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
IMO we must keep this simple, otherwise it will unravel with everybody going off at a tangent and nothing will be agreed, the points system abandoned etc. My own view is that if the Opera Project does agree to assessments then it must be on a category by category basis, i.e. a points scheme should be agreed in advance for each category immediately before the rating. For that reason I don't think any more assessments are needed now. -- Kleinzach 01:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, fine. And maybe we should get SatyrTN to upgrade the Opera Project banners in step with the assessment process (say, all the operas first, then all the singers and so on). --GuillaumeTell 21:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes indeed, but I think we will need to establish a consensus before involving SatyrTN. -- Kleinzach 02:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
BTW, it would be good if we could individually invite people who've signed up for the Wagner Project and who haven't yet commented on any of this (i.e. Fireplace, Moreschi, Folantin, Smerus, Alexs) to express a view on what we've been doing. --GuillaumeTell 16:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, these people are all active on the Opera Project and not active here (except Smerus), so I think it's better to address them there. I don't think talking to half the Opera Project (which they are) now, and half later is a good idea. -- Kleinzach 01:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
OK. --GuillaumeTell 21:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
One thing we could do is say that we have piloted opera assessments and seek to broaden those out before doing other assessments. There are roughly 1150 opera articles. So it will take a little while to do those before considering any other type of article. And, unless we get other people intersted in assessment, I think that is more than enough for three of us at least the rest of the year, if not next year too. Once we have a semblance of progress through a large chunk of opera articles, we can consider adding another category of assessment.--Peter cohen 13:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
That's right. Assessing any major category it would be a major effort, so I don't think lining up a whole series of points schemes in advance is necessary. Anyway I will do a draft shortly for both of you to see to take us into the next stage. -- Kleinzach 15:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Otherwise, I don't know how often people envisage assessments happening. The rating system is part of an effort to improve the quality of Wikipedia. Feedback provides more guidance than just a rating, as given out by some projects.--Peter cohen 18:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The operas template

Template:Wagner operas This is very wide - would it look particularly worse if a linebreak was used after every name with "Der Ring des Nibelungen:" in front of - like this: User:Lethesl/My sandbox? No worries if the change is a bad idea Lethe 20:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That's Ok, except for the fact that the "view" button overlaps with Wagner's surname - at least on my browser (new Firefox). Moreschi Talk 20:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Mine too - I wasn't sure how to fix it. If it's not fixable, it'd only involve a second click to reach the correct page using one of the second two links, but that's not a very neat way to leave it Lethe 21:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Edit: Actually, it's still clickable, which makes it at least functional.
And mine. It doesn't look easily fixable to me, though perhaps retitling it "Wagner operas" would work by occupying less space. More importantly, repeating "Der Ring des Nibelungen" four times looks rather peculiar in this layout, though it looked fine in the wider one. Might I suggest having it just once, as "Der Ring des Nibelungen (1854-1874)". --GuillaumeTell 21:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Would people think Wagner wrote 15 operas if "Der Ring des Nibelungen" was listed? How about simply removing 'Der Ring . . .' completely? After all we don't use full titles normally (e.g. Così fan tutte, ossia La scuola degli amanti). -- Kleinzach 22:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Removing entirely would work - I can't think of a way to retain the Ring title just once, as they weren't all composed in an unbroken row. The list would lose some information, but it'd be extremely easy to find it out by clicking on any of the Ring operas. Another way would be colour-coding the ring operas differently from the rest, although that may be a bit tacky Lethe 23:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
How about a numbered list as at User:Peter cohen/sandbox? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter cohen (talk • contribs) 23:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
That would be good as well, perhaps we should make a vote on this or something, eventually. I also added a few alernatives here (the 3rd is an ok solution, but perhaps only to someone who knows those operas are a set anyway - not sure about how intuative it is to an unfamiliar person) Lethe 23:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Edit: The 3rd bracketed one could also be combined with your numbered solution - although I think that the numbered one is the best suggested so far Lethe 23:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The 3rd looks good except that the bullets are a bit wide and there is still the problem with the top bar. (Typographical solutions are difficult when our typographical options are so limited.) On balance I still think the easiest way is simply to remove 'Der Ring . . .' -- Kleinzach 23:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think there are at least four different issues here:
  • Do we include the Ring? I tend to say yes.
  • How do we indicate the Ring operas as parts of the Ring? (Numbers, bullets, parentheses, colours etc.) I certainly favour numbers over bullets.
  • Do we keep them together? In my proposal I shove them all below Mastersingers.
  • If we have the Ring and the four operas in the list, do we date both the Ring and the operas or just the operas? I hadn't thought of this before doing the xample on my page.

--Peter cohen 23:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

IMO the chronological order of all of the operas is quite important, but if any solution for identifying the Ring operas with the non-Ring ones between them is not clear enough, then I am happy with Peter's numbered list after Meistersinger. Lethe 00:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit bothered by unchronological sequences. How about having, after Lohengrin, "Der R des N", followed by #s 1 & 2; and then repeating (just the once) "Der R des N" after Meistersinger, followed by #s 3 & 4? --GuillaumeTell 00:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Like the bottom one here? User:Lethesl/My_sandbox It seems decent Lethe 00:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC) Edit: Heck, looking at it now, it may not need the second Ring title, as the numbers imply it. Perhaps the Ring title can be bolded as well? Lethe 00:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I would be happy to settle for that one (with the second Ring title that is).
Chronology is something of a problem when two thirds of Siegfried was written before Tristan, and the rest after Mastersingers.--Peter cohen 00:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
When I created the template, I used the date of completion, which I think gives a fairly accurate statement of where it belongs (certainly better than date of first performance). --GuillaumeTell 00:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Narrowed down

I'm not sure how a useful consensus can be reached on this (with so few people posting), but I believe everyone is happy with either the top or bottom of these? User:Lethesl/My_sandbox Perhaps we should vote? Also, numbers or Roman numerals? Numerals tend to be common for opera in act numbers, as well as movement numbers in other classical music. Lethe 17:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I've already indicated that my preference would be for the lower one as it keeps the Ring together, but from the conversation above I'm in a minority.--Peter cohen 19:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Monthly drives and mid-term ambitions

Do we want to record somewhere more permanent our mid-terms ambitions for articles? I know User:Dogbertd has FA ambitions for Parsifal and Tristan und Isolde and more generally for the other late work and the RW article. I agree that FA should be our long term ambition for all the mature works. but should we perhaps have a monthly drive to achieve an aim for a particular article? I'm thinking particularly of reaching GA, A and FA levels.

Obviously Dogbertd is currently working on getting Tristan ready as a GA candidate. I don't want to commit to anything this month when I'm already working on the assessment here and assorted Czech works for WP:WPO, but I don't think too much work would be needed to get Die Feen to GA. Also, having looked at the Parsifal article, I feel that I can help with the points that prevented be marking it as A-grade.

So it would be nice to have these recorded as project ambitions. I realise that there is a danger of "too many cooks", but I also think a shared focus will help. For example with Die Feen, I've had no experience with working on sound files and I don't have access to Grove or the other big opera dictionaries. If we had someone able to help with those sort of tasks as part of a monthly drive, even if there were one or two people that took the lead, that would be useful.

My suggestions for drives:

  • Month one: Tristan to GA
  • Month two: Die Feen to GA
  • Month three: Parsifal to A
  • Month five: The RW article
  • Month four: Something focussed on the Ring or one of its constituents
  • Month six: one of the middle operas.

I'm thinking of each six months having three drives on the late seven operas, and one each on the early operas, the middle three operas, and biographical articles on Wagner himself, a performer or another connected person. Once we have made soem progress on the last seven operas, we can reduce to maybe a Ring task every six months and a non-Ring one. Apart form the opera articles themselves, there are complete discographies to do and, especially for the Ring, I would want a list cataloguing the leitmotives with sound samples.

As an ambition for the project, I would like when our first full year as a project end next May to have promoted several articles to GA, and to end the following year with some FAs and all the major works at at least GA.--Peter cohen 13:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7, 1.0

I have nominated Parsifal as our only GA for the 0.7 project. The article on RW himself is already in there as high priority and I thought he was looking lonely. If I was going on importance in the history of culture alone, I probably would have picked one of Tristan or the Ring as our first opera candidate. I suggest we see how Parsifal gets on as a candidate and see what ratings we give to the more important articles and then decide whether to nominate them. --Peter cohen 12:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Assessment of Importance

Other projects assess importance of articles as well as quality. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mythology/Assessment for an example. It might be useful to do the same here.

My first thoughts:

Innumerable singers, conductors, commentators and directors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter cohen (talk • contribs) 11:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we should first finish the assessments, then discuss any importance rating in the absence of any lists, and only after that get into the detail. Many of the articles above are not even in Wagner categories! Let's keep our feet on the ground - and please sign your comments! -- Kleinzach 14:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wagner family

I have created this new category to go with the Wagner family tree, distantly modelled on the Category:Kennedy family. This effectively emptied the top Category:Richard Wagner except for Ludwig II of Bavaria. Reviewing the latter I've decided to remove this: most of the material in this article is historical or architectural, rather than about RW. Ludwig might belong in a Wagnerite cat - but that was deleted some time ago. If anyone is unhappy about this let me know, but I hope the new arrangement is more logical. -- Kleinzach 02:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is Ludwig Geyer classified under Category:Wagner studies, not Category:Wagner family? I think his role as a stepfather should count as being in the family. And what about relatives by marriage i.e. lizt, von Bulow (sort of)?--Peter cohen 12:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
This is a new one that I was unaware of - I've moved it to Category:Wagner family, put a project banner on it and assessed it. I have my doubts about whether it will grow into a useful article. -- Kleinzach 15:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
and surely Minna is entitled to an article?Smerus 12:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Bayreuth articles

Um - shouldn't Bayreuth Festspielhaus be somewhere in a Wagner category - if so which?, now that Category:Richard Wagner has been emptied in its own right? Smerus 12:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I don't see why some of these things can't live in the main category. I don't think it is altogether empty, anyway.--Peter cohen 14:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
OK. I have put Bayreuth Festspielhaus, like Bayreuth Festival in the RW cat and put a project banner on it. -- Kleinzach 16:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Assessments: Table of operas

Have we been over-optimistic in our summary. Here's a table of operas and our marks.

Wagner Opera Assessment results
Opera G K P span
Die Feen 64 70 64 6
Das Liebesverbot 40 30 34 10
Rienzi 32 34 32 2
The Flying Dutchman (opera) 55 48 47 8
Tannhäuser (opera) 65 54 52 13
Lohengrin (Wagner) 31 30 33 3
Tristan und Isolde 70 70 74 4
Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg 58 60 51 9
Der Ring des Nibelungen 63 ? 55 8+
Parsifal ? 81 78/82 3+

The span column is the difference between out top and bottom rating for that work. 16 is over half the width of a grade, 10 and 13 a third or more, and our median span of 8 is over a quarter a grade width, as is our mean.

I've excluded the Ring operas, as we weren't agreed on how to allow for the composition of the ring articles. I've excluded the Ring itself because an over-zealous admin has gone and deleted our comments.--Peter cohen 16:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The marks for Parsifal are not correct. I did not mark Parsifal, nor did GT. Where did GT's other figures come from? He didn't record them on the comments pages. In any case I don't think this table is useful because the figures by themselves don't mean much. -- Kleinzach 16:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I got your mark for Parsifal from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Richard Wagner/Archive 1#Article assessment 3: testing. I've lost track of where I found GT's mark. Maybe I misread something else. I assumed you two kept your ratings from before. If we had rated the article as A, that would have trumped the GA the article currently has. So I would have hoped that you two did produce marks for it.--Peter cohen 19:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I recorded my marks at one of my sandboxes and provided a pointer during one of our now archived discussions: User:GuillaumeTell/Wagner_ratings. Peter corrected my mis-adding-up of the Lohengrin figures. And indeed I didn't rate Parsifal. --GuillaumeTell 18:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Can I archive this now? I need to do this before we go to the Opera Project. -- Kleinzach 16:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
No. And why? --Peter cohen 19:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Peter, as you are against archiving this. I've made a new section for you. -- Kleinzach 00:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I don't see any useful point in making a critique of the results themselves. I welcome any ideas about improving the methods of the assessment, even though this should really have been done before the assessment, not after it. As far as I am concerned, the assessment here is ended. It was a trial. It is now over and I'm signing off. -- Kleinzach 00:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Assessments: Creating various project subpages

I'm creating various pages to mirror Category:WikiProject Mythology and its assessment sup-pages, specifically ones to record our stub, start, B and GA articles. If we mirror, the structure in more detail we should belong to a Category:WikiProject Opera page that doesn't yet exist rather than directly belonging to culture.--Peter cohen 10:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I also notice that WP:Mythology is part of Version one. Do we want to be? Does the fact that we are carrying out assessments make us aprt of it anyway--Peter cohen 10:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I have now categorised all the assessed articles and we have

  • Stub-class 11
  • Start-class 17
  • B-class 13
  • GA-class 1
  • A-class 0
  • FA-class 0

As I have said earlier, I would quite like to see an exercise to raise one of the B-class or above articles by a grade each month. I think it is a lot easier for one person to take a stub article and make it start ot to take a start to B than to raise an article to the top three categories on one's own. --Peter cohen 12:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Assessments: Wagner articles by priority

I think it is now high time to prioritise material. I'll issue my proposal once I've finished the class categorisation, unless someone wants to beat me to it. --Peter cohen 10:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've now remembered that Kleinzach wanted the possibility of prioritisation discussed in the absence fo lists. Given we only have 42 rated articles, and you don't have to read them to rate their importance, I think it is worth prioritising them. It will then allow the creation of a table such as the one at the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mythology/Assessment which will help us see easilly how we are progressing as a project.

Obviously when we finalise the scope, we may want to add more articles in, but we aren't committed to assessing their priority immediately.--Peter cohen 12:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Richard_Wagner/Archive_3&oldid=1190111840"