User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 63

OTD Carmen
She is featured on the Main page and in my little opera showcase. - Getting closer to Messiah: how do you feel about the referencing we had last in May? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the Carmen recognition. She was scheduled to be today's featured article, but was bumped (with my complicity) in favour of the Bismarck escapade. Bencherlite can reschedule it whenever he likes, but he'll probably wait until after Messiah, to avoid classical music overkill on the main page. I intend to get down to some serious Messiah polishing this week, as it looks likely that it will run, though not scheduled yet. Brianboulton (talk) 13:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Messiah (Handel)
This is a note to let the main editors of Messiah (Handel) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 23, 2013. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/March 23, 2013. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or his delegates, , and , or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you can change it—following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Messiah (HWV 56) is an English-language oratorio composed in 1741 by George Frideric Handel, with a scriptural text compiled by Charles Jennens from the King James Bible and the Book of Common Prayer. Messiah was first performed in Dublin in 1742, and received its London premiere the following year. After an initially modest public reception, the oratorio gained in popularity, becoming one of the most frequently performed choral works in Western music. Although its structure resembles that of opera, it is not in dramatic form, but a reflection on Jesus Christ as Messiah. Handel begins Part I with prophecies by Isaiah and others, and shows the annunciation to the shepherds as the only scene from a Gospel. In Part II he concentrates on the Passion and ends with the Hallelujah Chorus. In Part III he covers the resurrection of the dead and Christ's glorification in heaven. Handel wrote Messiah for modest vocal and instrumental forces. After his death, the work was adapted for performance with giant orchestras and choirs. Its orchestration was revised and amplified by (among others) Mozart. Since the late 20th century, the trend has been towards authenticity. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited George Lansbury, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hyde Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment on Theodora Cormontan nomination, now withdrawn
Hi Brian, (I'm going to assume your username reveals your real-life name)

Thank you for your comment on my nomination of Theodora Cormontan for featured article status. I've withdrawn the nomination, it appears to have been archived and once the 'bot' has worked its magic on the talk page, I will add the peer review template. Since it appears you are freakishly busy on things wiki, I would suggest you wait on picking up the article until I have a chance to implement the suggestions made on the nomination page. When I've got a more wikified version, I'll ping you back here on your talk page. If you prefer to handle this differently, just let me know. Regards, Dictioneer (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me know when you're ready to go. Meanwhile I'll try and do a little digging on Theodora. I see she doesn't have an entry in Grove Music Online, which is surprising given how comprehensive that source normally is, but I'll obviously have to dig deeper. Brianboulton (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The enigma is part of the reason I enjoy researching this article. You'll find her in "Women in Music: an Encyclopedic Bibliography", "Int'l Encyc. of Women Composers, vol. 2", "Women in Music: Selective Annotated Bibliography", and of course she's xref'd in the HYMNTune index hymnary. If you read German, Universal-Handbuch der Musikliteratur by Franz Pazdirek (1904),and if your library is really good, "A History of Norwegian Music" by Nils Grinde. After that, you'd better brush up on your Norwegian or have a better tool than the Microsoft translator. :) If you do find any other useful sources, please let me know. If it wasn't for the professor in Minnesota visiting all those small-town papers, I'd have had a much tougher time with the US part of the article. Thanks again and I hope to be back in touch shortly. Dictioneer (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My German is rudimentary, my Norwegian nonexistent, but I'll keep looking for English material. Brianboulton (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hemingway again
Hi Brian, would you be interested in or have time to revisit Big Two-Hearted River? It's at FAC again. link. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course. Do you fancy taking a look at George Lansbury at peer review? Anxious for comments on this one! Brianboulton (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry Brian, I just noticed this. I'll try to take a look tonight; otherwise over the weekend if it's still open. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries, it will be open for a week. It may not be your cup of tea at all. Brianboulton (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I started but got distracted. Will try to get back to it tomorrow. Looks interesting from the small bit I've managed to read so far. I'm not great with politician bios but am happy to give it a shot. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Brian, I apologize but I won't get to it. Thanks again for the help with Hemingway - that was a tough one and is better because of your help. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Leg before wicket
I've another favour to ask! And this one is a bit unusual. I've been working on the lbw article and I'm wondering if it's worth a go at FAC. As this is a rather more unusual cricketing subject than the usual biographies (and I really should get to something other than cricket one of these days...), I'm not too sure about this one and whether it is what would be expected of an lbw FAC. I'd appreciate your eyes, as at least you have a fighting chance of understanding it (although I'm also after some non-cricketers to see if they have a clue what it's on about if anyone else is reading this) without having a cricketing POV as such. I'm probably going to head to PR in the next couple of days, but I'd like to do a little tightening first as I've just added some rather heavy statistical studies and I think the whole thing still needs a polish. If you get a chance to look, whether at the PR or just on the talk page, I'd be very grateful. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is a great idea and will undoubtedly please the many cricket aficionados that stalk the pages of Wikipedia. I'm a bit worried, however by the statement in the opening paragraph: "the umpire will rule a batsman out lbw if the ball would have struck the wicket but was intercepted by any part of the batsman except his bat, or the hand in which his bat is held.". Surely, the umpire's decision is ruled by (a) the point where the ball pitched and (b) the position of the batsman's leg at the point of impact? For example, a ball that pitches outside the leg stump cannot result in an lbw decision, regardless of whether the ball would have hit the wicket (a point which is often an issue with amateur "umpires" in club matches). So I guess you'll need to add a few modifiers to that opening statement. I have a few other review commitments, and my own article at PR, but I'll try to read the whole article in the next few days, and give a more general assessment then. Brianboulton (talk) 10:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And herein lies the problem: I tried to keep the opening simple for the general reader whom I suspect doesn't want a complex explanation including leg stump and pitching in line within the first few sentences. I've re-arranged a bit, but still want to work at the whole thing later. It's not just the aficionados whom I want to understand it! With this in mind, don't be afraid to suggest that this one isn't at FA level, for I have doubts myself for reasons of accessibility. And, ironically, in terms of comprehensiveness too. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you do get the chance, the PR is here. Thanks. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

PC FAC
I addressed your comments at Featured article candidates/Priyanka Chopra/archive1. Do you have any followup comments, or are you able to support the nomination at this time? BollyJeff &#124;  talk  12:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Theodora Cormontan submitted for peer review
Hi Brian, the Theodora Cormontan fa nomination has been archived, and I've made changes based on the suggestions there (especially tried to clean up the ref's). I added the peer review template on the talk page, so I think it's ready for you and/or User:Nikkimaria to have a look. Let me know what you think and thanks in advance! PS: (if I understand correctly, the ps must go before the signature) if you have a labor you'd like me to perform by way of thanks for your help, just say the word. I've been doing some queue-clearing from old end of the new-articles list, but other ideas are welcome. Dictioneer (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I will get to this as soon as possible (I have a few prior commitments to fulfil). As a return favour (not that any such thing is demanded or required) you could perhaps help me by casting an eye over L'Arianna. I finished this about 15 months ago and have not looked much at it since. I did not bring it to formal review, because I didn't think the rather sparse WP classical music editing community was ready for yet another of my Monteverdi extravagances. I'd welcome some general views on the article, though please don't feel obliged to do this. Brianboulton (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Greetings, BB. I'll look over the article as you suggest. A preliminary rummage in the BL catalogues doesn't throw up anything relevant, but I'll have a proper look next week. I'll look at your latest Monteverdi offering as well, but not for a few days, what with one thing and another. Tim riley (talk) 10:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * L'Arianna has been hiding from your eyes for more than a year, so a few days' delay is neither here nor there. If I decide to FAC it, this will be after Lansbury, so there is no special hurry at all. But I would of course welcome any comment you care to make, knowing your great enthusiasm for Monty. Brianboulton (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions on L'Arianna
You don't need me to tell you that, overall, this article is dauntingly good. Nevertheless, I'll attempt to be bold: my suggestions will fall along the lines of changing the opening to better grab the interest of the general reader, plus possible minor corrections and additions.


 * Opening para – The SV 297 tag is distracting to the general reader, especially in the 'grab' sentence for a FA. Move into the next section, perhaps?


 * Bigger 'grab' suggestion: I would rephrase the opening sentence to include the fact that it is a “lost opera” and a couple of interest-grabbing factoids. Something like: ...is one of Monteverdi's lost operas, was the inaugural work for the Teatro San Moisè in Venice, and was said by the author to have “brought me almost to death's door.” The only surviving portion, “Lamento d'Arianna,” is considered one of the most influential works of the early 17th century. The second opera written by the Italian composer Claudio Monteverdi (1567–1643), it was first performed on 28 May 1608, … probably too wordy, but hopefully you see what I'm trying to achieve.


 * I would hyperlink to the story of the abandonment on Naxos, … It recounts Ariadne's abandonment by Theseus on Naxos …
 * Opening, 2nd para – I would use inventive instead of innovatory (probably an American v. British thing) to avoid intimidating the general reader with unfamiliar vocabulary.
 * Revival: Venice 1639-40 – the image is bot-flagged to move to Wikimedia commons, and I would think that's where it belongs. I'm also tempted to move it to the top of this article, replacing Monteverid's portrait, but I suspect that probably violates a standard/template for the organization of this type of article.
 * External Links – the link says Lamento d'Arianna but it points to Lasciatemi_morire_(Claudio_Monteverdi) which I suspect is a simple error to fix.

That's what I've got. I hope my suggestions are helpful, and I hope that someday I'll produce an article to a similar standard. Dictioneer (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your suggestions and kind words. Over the next week or so I will look to implementation of your points. You are right that the substitution of the Monteverdi portrait would breach an accepted convention for these articles. The same is true of the positioning of the SV reference. I feel inclined to respect these conventions, but will be happy to embrace the other changes. Brianboulton (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

A few comments from me: That's my lot. At your service at formal PR or FAC. – Tim riley (talk) 09:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * Blue links for Ariadne and Theseus?
 * "become popular as a concert piece outside the context of the opera" – are the last six words necessary? Not sure, but I mention it for your consideration
 * Historical context
 * "Monteverdi was then commissioned to write" – if I correctly read this section, Monteverdi was a member of the duke's staff, in which case "commissioned" is an odd word. "Asked" or even "told" would seem more the mark.
 * "Maria de' Medici" – you have your reasons for piping Marie de' Medici  as  Maria de' Medici, but they are not obvious to me.
 * Libretto
 * When I review any article I always run it through a spell check. You will be pleased to learn that what you have typed as Virgil's Aeneid should, according to my computer, be Virgin's Adenoid.
 * "suggested; the musicologist" – I'd be inclined to use a colon, not a semicolon here.
 * Roles
 * "the singer's involvement is speculative, based on their presence" – singular noun with plural pronoun.
 * Synopsis
 * "as she will not be acceptable to the people of Athens as their queen" – nowhere before this has it been stated that Theseus is king of Athens. You might do it at first mention, in the lead.
 * Premiere: Mantua, 1608
 * "lasted for 2½ hours" – looks strange in figures, I feel. Perhaps two and a half hours (or two hours and a half)?
 * Revival: Venice, 1639–40
 * Image caption – if I were you I might venture a [sic] after "Ariana's", otherwise you can bet some well-meaning ninny will tell you you've misspelled the name elsewhere in your text.
 * "Lamento d'Arianna"
 * "the "Prelude and Liebestod" in Tristan und Isolde announced Wagner's discovery" – I struggle with this. You don't need me to tell you that there is no "Prelude and Liebestod" in Tristan, or anywhere else other than the Albert Hall on Wagner nights. Surely Ringer must refer to the "Prelude" and "Liebestod". This, by the way, is your first mention of Ringer, so his first name and possibly even a word or two of labelling might be useful here.
 * Sources
 * Need a bit of dusting. ISBN for Arnold and Fortune (here). Don't need (UK) after Cambridge for Fabbri. Denis Stevens's book should surely be just CUP – no need to drag the syndics in.

Note: Thanks for your comments, Tim. I am copying all these suggestions and notes to the L'Arianna talkpage and will respond to them there. I can't open a peer review at the moment, because I have a live review going on there. If I can attract a few more comments to the talkpage I may do away with the PR stage altogether (almost unheard of in my modus operandi) but we'll see how we go. Brianboulton (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marion Coates Hansen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Labour Representation Committee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Priyanka Chopra
Hello! The article is getting a lot better. I think you should check it and comment on its FAC. please, continue the Fac. Featured article candidates/Priyanka Chopra/archive1 Prashant  talk  16:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

More changes incorporated in Theodora Cormontan article
Hi Brian, I believe I'm caught up with both Nikkimaria's suggestions and your corrections. In two cases, my rewordings made your corrections obsolete(?), but I think everything else you did is preserved. When you get a minute, take a look and let me know what else you see that needs changing. For future suggestions, I'll respond point-by-point as I did with Nikkimaria's. Thanks for your help! Dictioneer (talk) 21:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Lansbury
I'd be delighted. It will be tomorrow evening or Saturday before I can get to it though. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That'll do fine. (Are you watching Test cricket right now? They'll never get Finn out) Brianboulton (talk)

Messiah TFA
Thanks for working on the article and its lead. "Only excerpt" is not quite correct, looking at "His yoke is easy" (Matthew), also I like the concept of "scene", as the author put it, - but you decide, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am none too happy with "scene" which suggests a more visual representation. I agree that "excerpt" is not good, and will give it further thought. Brianboulton (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Also note the following. I have fixed one broken link, removed another which was only providing backup. I cannot get the link in 136 to work; can you try it? Check the article history for details of a few other fixes I have made in advance of next week's TFA; removing an uncited note and information cited to a sub-quality source. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This perhaps? - "Scene" was the term Jennens used, perhaps in quotation marks? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The link works with the new url, thanks. OK, "scene" in quotes is as good as anything. Brianboulton (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Image downsized for Theodora Cormontan article, other changes made
Hi Brian, I've incorporated your most recent round of suggested revisions and have updated the non-conforming image (I think -- the image stuff definitely stretches the boundaries of my technical expertise). I've updated the peer review page so that's the best place to check and respond. Thanks again, Dictioneer (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have re-sized the images per WP MOS. Please see WP:IMGSIZE for policy details. Readers can use the thumbnail link to obtain larger versions of images. I don't have time to look at the other revisions for the moment, but will leave a note when I can. Brianboulton (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I had a look at your changes and believe that I now understand the policy: high-resolution file upload, use thumb tag in wikipedia articles. Thanks, Dictioneer (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Gustav Holst
I can't remember our modus operandi for constructing the Delius article when we worked on it together. Did I pitch in on one of your sandboxes? I have started Holsting in a desultory way at User:Tim riley/sandbox8. I am not as methodical as you: I construct my articles jigsaw style, not in start-to-finish order, so please excuse the mess. My sandbox stuff can be moved as, when and where needed, or you may wish to use the sandbox as joint workspace for this undertaking. Yours to command, and no hurry whatever. – Tim riley (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If memory serves, I think I imposed our intended structure on the pre-expansion Delius article, and we developed the individual sections. We can do the same thing here, but for the moment I suggest we use our own sandboxes. I will concentrating on the musical analysis and checking out the list of works, you'll be working on the life, so at this stage our efforts won't clash. I shan't actually be doing much until next week, when a couple of books should arrive. Incidentally, I thought the biography in the Holst website was quite informative (even if the prose style is undistinguished). Who is Ian Lace? Brianboulton (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 March 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Peer review of Binders full of Women
Thanks for the peer review. Casprings (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Professionals
About a year ago you mentioned that a Wikipedia article looked "unprofessional." Idea of Wikipedia is as I understand, that "professionals" are banned, or unwelcome or irrelevant or something like that. Actually I DON'T understand. Problem is when administrator types who are mostly programmers... start to see themselves as "professional class" and blabla bla.

--Am banned for insulting administrators..Have reproductive behavior with yourself.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.61.95 (talk) 03:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't remember what I said a year ago, or the context, so I can't comment, except to say that "reproductive behavior with yourself" sounds odd; what did we get up to? Brianboulton (talk) 12:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Re:Bat'leth FA
I've fixed the issues you brought up on the Bat'leth FA nomination.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 20:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Last voyage of the Karluk
This is a note to let the main editors of Last voyage of the Karluk know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 31, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or one of his delegates (,, and ), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/March 31, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The last voyage of the Karluk, flagship of the Canadian Arctic Expedition of 1913–16, ended in a disaster which led to the deaths of almost half the ship's complement. In August 1913 the ship became trapped by ice in the Arctic Ocean. The expedition's leader, Vilhjalmur Stefansson, then left with a hunting party; while he was away the ship began to drift, preventing his return. When after many weeks the ship was crushed by ice and sunk its captain, Robert Bartlett, led the 25 crew and expedition personnel across the sea ice to Wrangel Island, 80 mi away. In the dangerous conditions, eight men were lost on the march. From the island Bartlett and an Inuk companion set out for the Siberian coast to seek help; they eventually reached Alaska, but weather conditions delayed the organisation of a rescue. On Wrangel Island the stranded party were short of food and troubled by internal dissent; before their rescue in September 1914 three more of the party had died. Some of the voyage's survivors were critical of Stefansson for leaving the ship, although he escaped official censure. Bartlett was hailed as a hero by the public and by his former Karluk shipmates. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Neville Cardus
This is a note to let the main editors of Neville Cardus know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on April 2, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or one of his delegates (,, and ), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/April 2, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Neville Cardus (1888–1975) was an English writer and critic. He became cricket correspondent of The Manchester Guardian in 1919, and its chief music critic in 1927, holding both posts until 1940. His contributions to these two distinct fields in the years before the Second World War established his reputation as one of the foremost critics of his generation. He considered music criticism as his principal vocation. Without any formal musical training, he was initially influenced by Samuel Langford and Ernest Newman, but developed his own individual style of criticism—subjective, romantic and personal, in contrast to the objective analysis practised by Newman. Cardus's opinions and judgments were often forthright and unsparing, which sometimes caused friction with leading performers. Nevertheless his personal charm and gregarious manner enabled him to form lasting friendships in the cricketing and musical worlds, with among others Newman, Thomas Beecham and Donald Bradman. Cardus spent the Second World War years in Australia, where he wrote for The Sydney Morning Herald and gave regular radio talks. In his last years he became an inspirational figure to aspiring young writers. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Admiration for two excellent TFAs in three days! - Please nominate Heber for soon. I created space for the others you mentioned, feel free to prepare blurbs there when you feel like it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Heber has been on the TFA requests page for some time (you are supporting it!). I have Carmen for 6 April. Others I have suggested to Bencherlite should only be used in an emergency, since I am getting much more than my share of TFA at present – four in two weeks. Brianboulton (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Carmen
This is a note to let the main editors of Carmen know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on April 6, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or one of his delegates (,, and ), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/April 6, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Carmen is an opera in four acts by the French composer Georges Bizet, first performed on 3 March 1875. It was not at first particularly successful and Bizet knew nothing of its later success as he died before its initial run was concluded. The opera tells the story of the downfall of Don José, a naive soldier seduced by the fiery gypsy Carmen (first played by Célestine Galli-Marié, pictured in costume). José abandons his childhood sweetheart and deserts from his military duties, yet loses Carmen's love to the glamorous toreador Escamillo after which José kills her in a jealous rage. The depictions of proletarian life, immorality and lawlessness, and the tragic outcome, broke new ground in French opera, and after the premiere most reviews were critical. Carmen initially gained its reputation outside France, and was not revived in Paris until 1883; thereafter it rapidly acquired celebrity at home and abroad, and continues to be one of the most frequently performed operas. The music of Carmen has been widely acclaimed for its brilliance of melody, harmony, atmosphere and orchestration, and for the skill with which Bizet represented musically the emotions and suffering of his characters. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Excuse my laughing! Two glorious days in one week for you of batting off the vandals, loonies and well-intentioned ninnies! The Cardus blurb looks fine to me, as (not that it's any of my business) does that for Carmen. Aux armes, citoyens! - Tim riley (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ...or Votre toast!. Three in seven days, and Messiah just last Sunday. These days I rather tend to let the vandals and well-intentioned meddlers and assorted tossers do their worst. I tidy up quietly in the following days, usually with minimum fuss. Brianboulton (talk) 00:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

For discussion on opera infoboxes, see thread below

Holst again
I have pretty much finished my research and writing on his life. The results are temporarily accommodated here. That's all for now. I repeat: deal with this when you are good and ready and not till then. I may even be kept out of your hair for a while, lured from retirement to do a copy-editing job for a long report my former employer is preparing to publish. – Tim riley (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no hurry to move on with this till you are good and ready
 * I have followed (I think) your practice in using reference templates (ugh!) and use of parenthetical dashes, but please check in due course
 * We must keep our practice in re page rages consistent. I do pp. 175–177, but am willing to entertain pp. 175-77. Your call, and (please) you to police.
 * I don't imagine you will have cause to use the word mediaeval/medieval, but despite the wise and good Guillaume Tell's scorn elsewhere I prefer the longer version. I am open to negotiation or trial by mortal combat.
 * Your sandbox mentions that you have Imogen's 1938 book as a ref; I have used the second edition (1969), so have listed both in the sources: please check in due course and leave or delete the ref to the 1938 vol as appropriate.
 * Your sandbox also mentions Dickinson 1995, which I haven't got and didn't consult. Please delete from the sources if you don't use it.
 * Referencing points about which I am not sure:
 * Note 61 (currently) draws on Gustav Holst last para, which represents devoted and admirable digging in the archives but may not, I fear, meet the WP:SOURCE requirement that the info is published. What think you?
 * Mowat ref (110 at date of going to press) from Naxos CD notes – does my ref formatting here look right to you?
 * I have put a couple of short paras in the slot awaiting your contributions on the music. Use or ignore as you prefer. Also, if you think anything in my biog section would be better sited in the music section, please shift thither without hesitation.
 * Mutual reviewing: I suggest you simply copy-edit my prose, when you are ready, amending whatever you want. I'll challenge any change I'm not happy with. I suggest the same arrangement for me in re your sections in due course.
 * I think I have carried over everything of significance from the existing article, but when we are rounding into the home straight you might like to look at it and see if there is anything useful and cited that I have neglected to preserve.
 * RVW pops up a helluva lot in the narrative. I think this is inevitable, given his ubiquity in GH's life and posterity, but please say if you think he outwears his welcome.
 * Though I agree with what you say, above, about the Holst website and Ian Lace, I have eschewed their use because I have my doubts on the WP:RS front. This is not a site of an established society or foundation à la the Elgar Society or the Walton Foundation. It seems to be a single enthusiast's site to which a handful of fellow-fans have contributed.
 * Thanks. I've not had a chance to read your work yet, but hope to do so at the weekend. A few comments meantime:
 * Although I have Imogen's 1938 book I was not intending to use it much in the music analysis sections. Her views of her dad's music tend to lack subjectivity and have to be treated with caution.
 * The Dickinson (1995) book is I believe important. I have failed to locate it via bookshops or ILL, so sod it, I've ended up buying the thing via Abebooks. That's another 15 quid the next generation of Boultons won't be inheriting, and more dissembling on my part when the parcel arrives. And a wait until it does arrive.
 * I rather suspect that RVW will figure quite largely in the music section.
 * As you have given way to me on reference templates, I'll use your preferred page range format.
 * I've not yet considered (current) ref 61 but will report in due course

I will get some stuff done next week, but obviously I need Dickinson. I'm glad we're not on a tight timeframe. I have just about finished with Jane Cobden, and may be seeking PR comments in a few days if I decide to take this forward. Brianboulton (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 March 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)