Talk:Kathrin Göring

Recordings
dropped this out. I think having a section with her recordings is important, but whatever. --evrik (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

It is one recording, which is mentioned in detail in the prose. Why duplicate? Her focus is on live performances, and the one recording is also from such a performance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

naming critics
, we don't? Can you point me to policy on that? I name critics all the time who don't have articles. Often I connect the publication, too, when the critic doesn't have an article, and I was thinking to do that here, but I think it's worth readers knowing that this opinion was by a person who does or doesn't have an article and/or was in a publication that does or doesn't have an article. I think we should be attributing review opinions whether or not the critic has an article. --valereee (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not a policy person ;) - So many things we don't mention, - why a not-so-notable name of a critic which doesn't matter. I'd understand publication if that is well-known. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Kind of the way I think is that it's just as valuable info to know that the rave came from someone not-very-important as the opposite. I think we should always attribute one person's opinion, and a review is inherently one person's opinion. --valereee (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree but think "a review" transports that same message (of one personn's opinion) the same way as "critic abc", only shorter, and without the distraction of the reader wondering who abc may be. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * So you don't object to me putting it back in? --valereee (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know, - I thought I objected just above. I won't revert you, but that's a different thing. (I'm on a voluntary 1RR.) For me, "a reviewer noted" says clearly that it's that person's opinion, without the disctraction of a specific reviewer's name. It's different for me if the reviewer has an article, because that adds weight to what they say. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * A review in an RS should be sufficient weight for a citation by name. However, the reviewer has a byline in the source, which gives him credit. Mentioning him in the article will cause many readers to ask "Who's he?" (that was my reaction). I can therefore see the reasoning behind requiring an article to establish notability. In my experience, authors have not usually been named like this. There probably should be an explicit policy. I offer a change to "review" here to avoid the question. Jmar67 (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , well, but yeah, if he isn't notable enough to be mentioned without causing confusion, why are we using his review at all? I'd rather use the review but attribute it and let readers see that this is a review by someone who doesn't yet have an article, or not use the review. --valereee (talk) 04:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The author may not be sufficiently notable to have an article (or he may be and just not have one yet). He could also have an article on the German side, but a link there would not be helpful. However, the review, albeit German, is notable enough to mention as a source. Jmar67 (talk) 01:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * and, ugh, it's a bummer this is happening over the holiday weekend, I'm quite busy, and it's close to moot now -- my concern is that we're mentioning this review today on the main page. But there's zero indication in the article whether the reviewer's opinion is at all important. What is Online Muzik Magazin? Who is this reviewer? If neither of them is important enough to even have an article in de.wiki, why are we putting their opinion on our main page? I should have brought this up on DYK talk so others who weren't as busy could help deal with it, but I didn't realize adding a tiny bit of verifiable, sourced info into an article would cause so much pushback. --valereee (talk) 12:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added the name of the publication with redlink. --valereee (talk) 13:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec) This critic's voice is one of many. See the last external link (same scene, other production): "Hier kamen die Emotionen hoch, eine glühende Intensität, das war stimmlich und darstellerisch ein Auftritt der Extraklasse, von Eindringlichkeit kaum zu überbieten", rough translation "Emotions got high, glowing intensity, both vocally and in acting a performance of extra class, hard to surpass in ? (insistence, urgency ...)" - We can't print all these in a short article, for reasons of undue weight, but believe me - and I saw it myself: it's rather objectively true, not only one critic's opinion. - You can also see that OMM is a respected source, granted images from the performances by the theatres. - After edit conflict: see what trouble we have even establishing an article about Bach digital? There are few independent sources about sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Gerda, I'm not objecting to having the information in the article. If we hadn't been mentioning this on the main page I wouldn't have been as concerned. (Although I still think we should go with something better -- has this woman literally never been reviewed by anyone or in any publication that has an article here or on de.wiki?) But to say 'a reviewer' and give the reader clicking here absolutely ZERO assistance in assessing that reviewer -- not a link to them, not a link to their publication, not even their name or that of the publication -- that's what I'm objecting to. Only the most sophisticated readers know how to check references for themselves, and we're stating this on the main page. I don't know how to assess this guy other than to google him and see that he's written many reviews. He could still be a blogger; some of them have written hundreds of reviews. --valereee (talk) 15:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've asked a question about Online Musik Magazin at WP:RS/N --valereee (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Online Music Magazin
, thanks for the correction. Okay, so don't get annoyed, I'm trying to work with you here to improve this article and make it something that won't make people scratch their heads when they click here from the main page, but if "that thing will never have an article" (bold mine), should we be looking for another source? Shouldn't most online publications at least qualify for possibly someday having an article in their home wiki? It doesn't have to have an article yet, but shouldn't it at least be important enough that someone somewhere thinks, "Hm, I wonder if such-and-such a publication should have an article, or at least be a redirect?" If neither the reviewer nor the publication are that noteworthy and never will be, shouldn't we be looking for other sources? We're telling people, because we're mentioning it on the main page of wikipedia, that this review is of exceptional importance. --valereee (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I just returned from the opera where the death of Mariss Jansons was the talk, and don't think for the remaining two hours anything will change. Did you even look at Bach Digital and the problems, and that is the most solid source about Bach and family we have? I'm already "booked" with red links for the rest of the year, and there's no one else in sight who would write about that site. -Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm sorry, I'm blanking on Bach Digital -- was I supposed to have looked at it? --valereee (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ... yes, per the thread above, - the talk page doesn't wet my appetite for writing about websites, sorry. - Back to Göring: it tells me to not base a hook on a critic's review. Wasn't my idea to start with. FAZ - leading German daily - mentioned her two roles with both an adjective, - it's just too tricky to use that for a hook. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see, sorry, now the bell is ringing. You're saying that trying to write an article for a website, even one that possibly would be helpful for creating other articles you're interested in writing, is not your primary interest? :) I get it. Well, it's in our rearview mirror now, so no worries. No one brought up the issue, so yay! :) --valereee (talk) 01:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, that's too simple. I wrote (translating) about Bach Digital, but see what happened. I would want to write about Bach Cantatas Website, the second-best source on Bach's compositions, before OMM, but see what happened (in some archive of RSN). There's so much eloquent opposition that I prefer to write on singers and music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That sucks, I'm sorry. I'd like to see us have an article on every reliable source. It just makes sense. --valereee (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)