Talk:Filippo Coletti

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Filippo Coletti. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040301194604/http://www.cyberstudia.com/ogmios/texts/carlyle/opera/opera.html to http://www.cyberstudia.com/ogmios/texts/carlyle/opera/opera.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927200633/http://www.todocoleccion.net/carta-justificante-baritono-filippo-coletti-1852-su-autografo~x32411478 to http://www.todocoleccion.net/carta-justificante-baritono-filippo-coletti-1852-su-autografo~x32411478
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040301194604/http://www.cyberstudia.com/ogmios/texts/carlyle/opera/opera.html to http://www.cyberstudia.com/ogmios/texts/carlyle/opera/opera.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040301194604/http://www.cyberstudia.com/ogmios/texts/carlyle/opera/opera.html to http://www.cyberstudia.com/ogmios/texts/carlyle/opera/opera.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments
, I'm commenting on the talk page rather than the GA page since the GA review is closed; I'll comment here as if it were a GA review and then if you decide to nominate it again I can pick up the second review at that point.


 * I still think all the details of the Conti popes aren't needed in this article; this would fit in an article about Anagni, but for this article a link to Anagni is enough. The fact that Tito marries into the family could be summarized in a single sentence if it's needed at all, and the description of the town also seems unnecessary.
 * Please add captions to the family photo, and to the picture of Verdi rehearsing with Colletti.
 * The "riot" was an uproar from the audience, not a disturbance of the peace, and I think this should be clearer to the reader who knows nothing of the event -- for a moment reading through I was thinking "Good lord, this actually led to the theatre burning down!" Similarly I don't see the relevance of the mention of the theatre burning 27 years later.
 * Just a suggestion, but you might consider adding red links for the composers in the list of roles created who do not currently have Wikipedia articles, unless you feel they are so obscure they will never have an article.
 * You have some unformatted HTML links as sources. I recommend formatting them as citations, as you've done for example with Carlyle's "The Opera" essay.  In a couple of cases more is needed; footnotes 7, 20, 31, 61 and 63 are only formatted as numbered links.  A worldcat link is not a good way to cite a source; just give the name of the author and the book details in plain text, and add the worldcat link to that if you want.  Similarly for the archive.org link to Baker's biographical dictionary.  It's a borderline issue as far as GA is concerned since the data is all more or less then, but it looks ugly and would be a kindness to the reader if it were easier to read the citations.
 * What makes coletticonti.it a reliable source? As far as I can tell (I don't speak Italian) it is a site maintained by the Coletti-Conti family, which makes it a self-published source in Wikipedia's eyes, and of very limited use as a source.  You're using it to support the existence of a book Coletti wrote and a role he sang, for example; unless I'm wrong about the website it's not a reliable source for that sort of thing.

The remaining concern is the quotes. I see that you've moved almost all of them to notes, and that does make the body of the article much more readable. The quotes you've left in the body seem fine to me. However, I think we still have a problem with the quotes that are still in copyright -- I haven't gone through the sources to see which ones are in copyright and which are not, but I can't see a justification for reproducing substantial portions of copyrighted works. I think these should be cut, and I don't see how the article can pass GA without it -- in fact it's not even a GA question, it's an issue with Wikipedia's copyright policies.

Even for the ones that are out of copyright, I would say that if you feel that there is information in these quotes which is simply not in the article itself, and you are expecting the reader to obtain the information by reading the quote via the footnotes, that's not a good way to organize the article. I might not fail GA for that reason but I don't think it's a service to the reader. I understand that paraphrasing always changes the information a little, but we're an encyclopedia, not an anthology -- the reader is directed to the sources from which we draw our information and can go there for more details if they wish. I would not fail GA for this, since the body of the article meets the GA criteria, but I suggest it's a mistake.

With regard to the GA criteria, the prose is clear and concise and everything is sourced; the coverage is as broad as can be expected given the topic and it is stable and neutral. I have not gone through the images to check their copyright status yet. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you again for your comments. -I prefer to only leave one 'red' composer, Moroni - all the others are simply too obscure and probably do not merit a stub, and they certainly would be difficult to source well. -I moved most of the coletticonti references to published sources (Coletticonti is per se not an information source, but a collection of other published materials, so it is not a problem to reference those instead). - I paraphrased one section, deleted a direct quote, even if it is from Coletti himself, but possibly under copyright. The rest are all quotes from the 19th century, hopefully I did not miss anything. All images are 19th century as well. Thank you again!Nicoderno1 (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * OK -- I think you've improved the article, and thank you for removing the modern copyrighted material. After thinking about it some more, I'd rather leave any future GA review to another editor.  I don't think the way you have the quotes in the notes is the best way to do it, but it's an editorial judgement, so another GA reviewer would give you a third opinion.  Best of luck with the article if you do nominate it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Coletti4.jpg