Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/André Messager/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 03:48, 28 April 2018.

André Messager

 * Nominator(s): Ssilvers (talk) and  Tim riley  talk    09:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

André Messager was a French composer and conductor who became the last major exponent of opéra comique and French operetta. His best-known works today are probably the operetta Véronique and the ballet The Two Pigeons, but several of his other stage works enjoyed international success at the turn of the 20th century. He was also a leading conductor, in charge of Paris's top orchestra and both its major opera houses. He was a prominent musical figure not only in Paris but in London, running the Royal Opera House for six years and supplying the West End stage with a succession of his hits (and occasional misses). The article has had a recent peer review by an all-star team of reviewers, and we think it is now ready for FAC. We look forward to your comments. Ssilvers (talk) and  Tim riley  talk    09:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Although it wouldn't matter if it became FA, I notice that this article's talk page says that it has passed a Good Article review, but doesn't have the green symbol in the corner of the article! Is there a reason for this? Mojo0306 (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There certainly used to be. I wonder if it vanished for some technical reason when the "up for FAC" message appeared on the page. A bit odd if so.  Tim riley  talk    17:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It was inadvertently removed with this edit. Fixed now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, Lord! Was that me? I oughtn't to be let out. Thank you for rescuing me.  Tim riley  talk    19:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from JM

 * "Messager's music became known for its melodic and orchestral invention, musical craftsmanship, and characteristically French elegance and grace." I'm not sure how neutral this is.
 * This uncited statement in the lead is backed up in the main text with cited statements. This is how I have habitually interpreted the rules about leads - except for direct quotes, don't usually cite.  Tim riley  talk    17:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * My worry wasn't so much that it was uncited, it was that presenting the claims in Wikipedia's "neutral" voice may not be appropriate. Perhaps I'm being oversensitive. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Josh Milburn, given the material below in the article, can you suggest a more neutral formulation for "characteristically French elegance and grace"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object to a cited direct quote. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The Penguin Opera Guide has this: "Elegance, neatness, tripping melodiousness, orchestral refinement, and a decidedly French grace were the composer's hallmarks". Other quotes are on his "preference for light and airy compositions, on the borderland between comic opera and operetta. His music is always elegant, witty, in the best French style", "Messager’s style is characterized by fine orchestration (evident also in the ballet music), a gift for easy-flowing melody, often in a waltz rhythm, and a skill in writing music of a dance-like character," and "Tuneful it always is; trivial never. Supporting the lilting melodies is some masterly orchestration, rich in design, and typically French, with its emotional use of the woodwind, and its quaintly dramatic modulations". I think our existing sentence encapsulates these pretty faithfully.  Tim riley  talk    13:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


 * "disastrous stock market speculation" Ditto (also, isn't that a compound adjective? Dash needed!)
 * Hyphens, as Sir Ernest Gowers said, will surely drive you mad if you take them seriously. I think you're right here. The text is a verbatim translation of one of the sources "des spéculations boursières désastreuses ruinent la famille Messager". Sources in English concur.  Tim riley  talk    17:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "In 1876 he won the gold medal of the Société des Auteurs, Compositeurs et Editeurs de Musique with a symphony, the work being warmly received when performed by the Concerts Colonne at the Théâtre du Châtelet in January 1878." Did this have a name?
 * The symphony? No. Only a key.  Tim riley  talk    17:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We note in the list of Works that it was in A major. At one point in the article we call it his "Symphony in A", and I have added "in A" to another mention.  Tim, do you now like the way we refer to it in all 4 instances? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm rather in two minds about this, but I can think of examples of a composer's only symphony's being generally referred to by its key – Franck's in D minor, for instance, or Bizet's in C – though I can't really think why. Still if it's good enough for Franck and Bizet it's good enough for Messager.  Tim riley  talk    20:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * "cantatas" Link?
 * Good idea. Will do.  Tim riley  talk    17:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Are "opéras comique" and "opérette" common enough in English to go unitalicised? It seems our articles on the forms italicise.
 * Tricky. The WP article on the former italicises; the short bit on the latter doesn't. The terms come up a lot in the article, and unless people object to roman I'd rather avoid a sea of italics.  Tim riley  talk    17:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "burlesques motifs" Jargon!
 * I'm surprised at this: both common words, surely, and clear in context?
 * I agree with TR. The use of the word "burlesque" to mean parody is the first meaning given in two dictionaries I just consulted.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I understood the meaning, so I suppose it can't be specialist. I retract my worry! Josh Milburn (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "at Ste Marie-des-Batignolles a small church in the north west of Paris" Are you missing a comma, here? Also, I'd recommend against the piped link to the neighbourhood in place of the church.
 * I agree. Not sure how that happened.  Tim riley  talk    17:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "He later recalled that he had received by post an unsolicited libretto:" I'm struggling to understand this story. Some unknown person sent him an unfinished work, he finished it, then performed it? Or have I misunderstood?
 * No, that's his story. He found out who wrote it, of course.  Tim riley  talk    17:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The reason the story is interesting is that, after a series of unsuccessful works, an unsolicited libretto suddenly led to one of Messager's most popular works and the most commercially successful period of his composing career. Any suggestions as to how to make it clearer? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Reading back, I understand this much better now. The problem was clearly at my end. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "Madeleine Hope Andrée" You specify the birth/death dates when you mention his first child- why not do that here?
 * Yes, I think we have her d.o.b. and d.o.d. in the sources. Shall add.  Tim riley  talk    17:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "sciatica" Link?
 * Could do. Do you think anyone will click on it?  Tim riley  talk    17:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd rather no* have people clicking away from our article to explore the unrelated medical topic of sciatica, especially as it did not significantly affect Messager's career and is not mentioned again. If it had been a life-long ailment, I would want to provide a link. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Again- I suppose I'm not convinced, but I am happy to concede. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Is Deburau worth linking? Don't be scared of redlinks! (This may apply to other compositions, but I'll not mention it again.)
 * Worth thinking about. It's a strange hybrid, and the redlink title will need to be carefully judged, esp. with the film and straight stage play of the piece to consider.
 * I would only redlink a work that I thought was likely notable. I think the criteria for linking/notability for theatre works should be a balance of the following factors: (1) Did it have a long and successful run?  (2) In a major theatre?  (3) Did it have a starry cast and/or creative team? (4) Did it receive significant coverage by the major reviewers? (5) Did it have numerous revivals or popular adaptations? (6) Did anything else of historic significance occur during the run?  In this case, I assume that it starred Printemps, but was it otherwise an unremarkable, short-lived, rarely revived work, Tim?  Were the film and stage play adaptations based on Messager's work or just other people's adaptations of common source material?  -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * They all revolved around Guitry. I have been toying with writing a brief article about it, but it isn't top of my list.  Tim riley  talk    20:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "but in London the official censor, the Lord Chamberlain, declared it "unfit for the English public", and banned C. B. Cochran's planned production starring Printemps and Guitry" Why?
 * French. Too sexy. The source doesn't specify, but I get the impression that a middle-aged man posing as his own son for amorous reasons (if I have it right) was too much for the Lord Chamberlain.
 * Tim, should we add that the libretto contained adult situations? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't read the libretto, and I found this delightful gem in the archives of the New York Times. The reported facts are as stated in the present text of the article, and to go any further would be speculative.  Tim riley  talk    20:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "His "Eh que ne parliez-vous?", from La Basoche was quoted" Curious comma use, and I think quoted is a little jargony.
 * You can quote a tune as well as a line of prose or verse. Seems the right term to me. Punctuation adjusted.  Tim riley  talk    20:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "commented that from classic opéras comiques, such as" Possibly overlinking?
 * This has come up once before. There has grown up an entirely unofficial, and no doubt ultra vires, practice in musical Life and Works articles that it is helpful to link important terms at first mention in the Works section. The logic, I suppose, is that a Life and Works article is practically two articles in one, and not every reader of one section will want to read both.  Tim riley  talk    17:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Two comments on the list of works: Hélène is incidental music to the play - not any kind of complete operatic work. According to Les Annales 1885 (p355-356) Le Petit Poucet is really a divertisement, with music by Verdi, Offenbach, Audran etc; the 3rd act ballet is original music by Messager - and possibly other bits of incidental music.Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Might be worth adding a footnote about Le Petit Poucet; I'll knock one up. I think Hélène is adequately covered under "Stage works (except ballets) ... drame lyrique."  Tim riley  talk    08:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * PS Sorry another thing - Fortunio is in five acts not four - I think the Erato recording based on the Lyon production is at fault for confusing the issue. You can check the vocal score at IMSLP. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is rather a mystery. The copy of the libretto (pub. 1907) I am looking at describes the work as "Comedie lyrique en quatre actes et cinq tableux", and a quick flick through the text bears this out. But the vocal score (a better scan than IMSLP's is here), as you say, divides the work into five acts. Logic suggests that the libretto was printed first, and that the vocal score represents the final version. (This certainly applied on this side of la Manche, with the texts and scores of the Savoy Operas.) But this looks like a theatre bill or programme, judging by the header, and has the piece as en quatre actes. I've tried to look at the contemporary reviews via the BNF's online archive, but it's suffering from technical problems today. I'll try again later.  Tim riley  talk    08:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This may go some way to solving the mystery. The original version is here said to have 5 acts, and the 1910 revival was in a revised 4-act version. (The four-act vocal score is clearly labelled "2ème édition".) Both versions have been given since. I now think I misinterpreted the bibliographic details of the 4-act libretto: the date 1907 was the copyright date, and not necessarily the publication date. So I think what we need here is a footnote saying that the piece was originally in 5 acts, later revised to 4.  Tim riley  talk    09:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your replies. I am not sure I can find any more to comment on at this stage, you will be relieved to read. I am quite interested to find more examples of operatic babies swapped at birth (since I suspect the librettists of the P'tites Michus didn't know much about G&S. There must have known Il trovatore, and possibly others; (Vanloo's memoirs simply go on about them living in adjoining appartments). For now though, with thanks for all your work on this article, I will shut up again. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And merci, notre indispensable Général Boum!  Tim riley  talk    21:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Stopping there for a time; a really great read so far. Very engaging, even to someone as ignorant of the topic as I am... Josh Milburn (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments so far. Looking forward to more, but no rush of course.  Tim riley  talk    17:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Josh Milburn! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Continued comments from JM

 * "one of the most poetic, most expressive works that have been written in France in the last twenty years" Is that quote correct? Shouldn't it be has been?
 * The arithmetic wouldn't work if you tried it the way you suggest: it is one of "the works that have been written". One of "the works that has been written" won't do.  Tim riley  talk    19:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe that this is a difference between US and Brit English. We would certainly write "has", but I rely on Tim's understanding of Brit usage. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You'd write "the works that has been written"? Surely not.  Tim riley  talk    20:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In US usage, it is "one ... that has been written." -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * After pondering this overnight, I am reversing myself. The clause boils down to:  one of [them] that have been written in France."  Faure's point is not that it is "one ... that has been written in France", but rather that it is among the most expressive works that have been written.  So I think Tim would be right in any case. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As long as the quote's accurate, there's no harm done, I suppose! Josh Milburn (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "but the ballet, unencumbered by the portentousness of the libretto which weighs down the rest of the piece, has remained in the repertory". Shouldn't that be that, rather than which? I wonder how accessible this sentence will be to some readers.
 * I don't mind "that" for "which", here, though the supposed distinction is not supported by Fowler and has been ignored by Dickens et al. I think Americans are keener on the distinction than English writers are: Ssilvers, any comments?  Tim riley  talk    19:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It should be ", which" to complete the parenthetical phrase. Now fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "The decade began well" Perhaps you could specify the decade?
 * Doesn't the heading "1890s" immediately above suffice? I'm surprised.  Tim riley  talk    19:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tim that it is clear from both the heading and the next date given. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't how I'd do it, but I'm happy to concede the point. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You don't close the quote that begins "the influence of Die Meistersinger"
 * Done.  Tim riley  talk    19:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "The plot was not strikingly original: critics commented that its story of babies switched at birth was already very familiar from Gilbert and Sullivan operas." It's not clear what your reference for this claim is; is it the references in the footnote? At the moment, they look like references for details about Gilbert and Sullivan operas rather than references for the critical response to Les p'tites Michu.
 * Point taken. Will add a citation for the general comment rather than the particulars.  Tim riley  talk    19:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And now done.  Tim riley  talk    20:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

All just suggestions! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I found the description of Les p'tites Michu a little tricky to follow; it feels like it assumes that readers are familiar with the musical.
 * Hmm. I'll need to study this further and come back to you.  Tim riley  talk    19:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't attempt to provide plot summaries -- not even for Veronique. So, I think it falls under the heading of, "if you want more info, click on the blue link", doesn't it? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, happy to concede the point. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No action needed, just wanted to comment what a great footnote #20 is!
 * Thank you, but don't get me started on that critic! G W Lyttelton,(Humph's father), once wrote to a friend, "Have you any 'foolometers'—people whose advice you ask, knowing that exactly the opposite to it will be the right course?" Well...
 * "up to the end of his life, too"[155] Like Fauré," Missed full stop?
 * Indeed. Now added. You have a wonderfully eagle eye, and I hope your Wiki-colleagues realise it.  Tim riley  talk    19:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Should the quote beginning "André Messager is the most French of conductors" perhaps be a blockquote?
 * I think perhaps it should. Conominus Concientius, what think you?  Tim riley  talk    19:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes! Good idea.  Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "Some later additions are listed below." I wonder if this should be avoided?
 * Alternative? Suggestions welcome.  Tim riley  talk    19:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with JM: Let's delete the sentence.  I think it is clear enough from context that anything issued after 1991 would be an "addition". Is that ok, Tim? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Fine with me: by all means prune.  Tim riley  talk    20:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What is a "role creator"?
 * Someone who created the role.  Tim riley  talk    19:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It was clear enough to me, when I first read it, but I wonder if a general reader who is not too familiar with theatre articles would understand. Could write something like "those who first played the roles in the original productions", but that seems so blobby.  JM, can you suggest anything clear and elegant? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * To me (and I'm not familiar with theatre!) the role would be "created" by the writer, but I confess I can't think of an easy way of framing this. Is it particularly important that they were role creators? Josh Milburn (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, because it is a recording by the person who actually introduced the song in the original production. The role creator was the first person to have imbued the song with their own performing style and therefore sets a model for how the song may be interpreted by later performers. For a modern example, a recording of "Let it Go (Disney song)" by Idina Menzel should be identified as a recording by the role creator (sometimes called "role originator"), whereas a recording by, say, Katy Perry, would be a cover version. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "as well as other contemporaries, Aino Ackté,[177] Emma Eames,[178] and John McCormack,[179] whose recordings have been reissued on compact disc" I wonder whether some dashes could help this sentence?
 * Yes, good. The poor old comma does get a bashing. I have often thought we need a super-comma that would subsume minor ones, but parenthetic dashes will do very well here.  Tim riley  talk    19:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And mostly exceptionally useful ones: thank you JM! Back anon to round off, and my co-nom will have responses, too.  Tim riley  talk    19:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Excellent comments. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Support from me. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Support I was one of the peer reviewers. Excellent article.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, Wehwalt, for support here and input at PR. Greatly appreciated.  Tim riley  talk    18:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you both! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Smerus
Support, certainly, an excellent article. Two minor niggles on a first reading (I might have further niggles on a further reading)
 * Niedermeyer's school. I've always heard of it as the École Choron or (as it was later known) the École Niedermeyer, on which there is an article in fr.wikipedia. According to that article it took the name "École de musique classique" only in 1880, long after Messager's time, and changed back to École Niedermeyer around 1900.
 * I really must get round to writing an En Wikipedia article, given its importance in the lives of two (and I hope three) composers I have successfully taken through FAC. I'll make sure the nomenclature here is right for its period. (Very well spotted, if I may say so.)  Tim riley  talk    15:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Later: now attended to.  Tim riley  talk    16:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Les p'tites Michu - you mention that he received the libretto without solicitation, but as it was a such a success I think you might reasonably name the librettists.
 * Point taken, though we name all Messager's librettists in the table below. M. u|Ssilvers, what think you?  Tim riley  talk    15:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is potentially a Pandora's Box in 2 ways. First, we do not mention the names of librettists, throughout the article, except in the table at the bottom and in footnote 18.  If we mention the names for Michu, should we mention the names of the librettists of Veronique, Beaucaire and the others?  Or, should we name the librettists for only the 4, 6 or 8 (or 10?) most popular/successful ones?  Second, if we mention the French librettists, then, when we talk about the extraordinary London success of several of the pieces, which were considerably adapted for the London stage, should we name the English librettists?  As it is, we appear to discriminate equally against all librettists.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We've subsequently concentrated all the info about librettists and translators in the table in the works section, with mentions in passing in the text only where it seemed particularly apropos.  Tim riley  talk    17:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

--Smerus (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for this, Smerus. And further niggles will be most welcome.  Tim riley  talk    15:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the comments and support! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat

 * Support. Another happy camper at PR, further read-throughs show this to have been improved from that high standard. Meets the FA criteria, and an interesting and engaging read. - SchroCat (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, SchroCat, for input at PR and your support here. Most gratefully received.  Tim riley  talk    15:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, SchroCat! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton
Support with a few suggestions for consideration:
 * "the first complete French performance of Così fan tutte". Does this mean the first performance in French, or the first performance in France?
 * The latter, I think, but I'll check and clarify.  Tim riley  talk    11:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Kaminski in his Mille et Un Opéras states that the Théâtre-Italien in Paris performed it from 1809-1862 (there is also a mention of it on this page https://www.operadeparis.fr/en/visits/exhibitions/mozart/mozart-adapted-to-french-taste-1793-1830). In TJ Walsh's Second Empire Opera he describes a Carvalho production which changes the plot to that of Love's Labour Lost by Barbier and Carré (Peines d'amour perdues) - although apparently the music remained intact. The 1920 Cosi at the OC was (naturally) in French according to Kaminski. I hope this helps, perhaps not. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting. That's presumably why the source particularly mentions the first complete Così in France. I am tempted to point out that Così didn't make it to America till 1922, but will resist the temptation.  Tim riley  talk    17:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC) OK - I imagine we'll never know how complete the Théâtre-Italien production was; let's give AM credit for this one.Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * " elder contemporaries" → " older contemporaries"?
 * "elder" gets the thumbs-up from Fowler, but I don't feel strongly about it, and would not be desolate if we changed it to "older".  Tim riley  talk    11:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with BB. Elder in America is now only used for siblings and statesmen. It looks antiquated to me. I'd vote "older contemporaries" if it is also correct in Brit. English. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Antiquated? My prose? Unthinkable. You have the casting vote, Ss, so by all means change.  Tim riley  talk    17:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Not antiquated, I meant "too elegant". -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * "it failed again, but the ballet, unencumbered by the portentousness of the libretto, which weighs down the rest of the piece...etc" Is this a WP judgement, or does the source say it?
 * It says it with knobs on, and is very rude about the librettist, Catulle Mendès.  Tim riley  talk    11:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * "may be partly due to the effectiveness of their respective libretti" – I think "the relative" effectiveness of their respective libretti" makes the required point.
 * Yes, flows better.  Tim riley  talk    11:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Recordings section: I would have preferred a brief summary, with a link to a subarticle detailing the various recordings. The present format is unrewarding to the general reader, and rather dense for someone seeking specific information.
 * I wouldn't violently object to that. Ssilvers, what think you? Not a difficult task if we agree with BB's suggestion.  Tim riley  talk    11:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I really don't think the recordings section should get its own article. Someone just added a completely redundant "List of works" sub-article that doesn't help our readers at all and, if anything, will likely introduce a divergence of information about Messager's works that will distract readers in the future. We, the editors of the main article, will not maintain that article, so it may attract errors and cruft in the future. Let's just make sure that the first paragraph of the recordings section is a good summary, and then if people want to skip the next three more detailed paragraphs, let them do so. I've re-organized slightly to make the first paragraph a more "general" paragraph, followed by the details, and having just re-read the section, I don't think it's that much of a slog to get through. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ss: let us have a word about this by email rather than taking up space here. I don't see any problem in rejigging to meet BB's point but keeping the details on the main AM page.  Tim riley  talk    19:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise, a credit to both main editors. Brianboulton (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, BB, for input at PR and your suggestions and support, above. Greatly appreciated.  Tim riley  talk    11:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, BB, but almost all of the hard work is Tim's! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment from KJP1
Nothing to add to the, as usually, excellent prose and certainly nothing to contribute to the musical content. Would it help if I attempted a sources review? I've not done one previously but very happy to give it a go, following BB's essay as guidance. My only caveats - it may take a little while, as a consequence of my inexperience and your multiplicity of sources, and someone else may make a better job of it. KJP1 (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As we lack both an image and a source review your kind offer of the latter is most gratefully received. Time is not of the essence, and I think I speak for both nominators when I say we shall happily wait as long as it takes for your review.  Tim riley  talk    13:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Fine - shall set to. It'll be in batches, I'm afraid. KJP1 (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Re images - If you wished to kill two birds with one stone, you could change the present photo of Mary Garden to one of her as Mélisande: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Melisande.jpg or https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Melisande.jpg, but you may have a good reason to keep the current lower-resolution photo. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ...and here is the Mary Garden category at the Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Mary_Garden. —Cote d&#39;Azur (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Good idea, but the image is too long and would not fit easily. Tim, perhaps one of the other Commons images from a role was conducted by Messager? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We used to have a photo of M Garden as Mélisande, but if memory serves it was voted down. The existing one is conveniently small.  Tim riley  talk    19:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I assume Garden as Mélisande has been rejected because the photographer of the cover of the magazine is potentially not dead enough (ie 1948?)... pity. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Source review - batch 1
Batch 1 - Published sources given in the sources section are all of high-quality and the ISBNs/OCLCs all check out on Worldcat. A few queries:
 * Book 2: Bradley, Ian - Worldcat lists G, S and Bradley as the authors, while Googlebooks gives G&S as the authors and Bradley as the editor?
 * If one were, perish the thought, being pedantic, neither WorldCat nor our article is strictly correct. The book consists of Gilbert's libretti on the right-hand pages and Bradley's explanations, glosses, notes and anecdotes on the left-hand ones. Sullivan's music is not reproduced. I can change the author to WSG and make Bradley the editor if you wish, but I think the import is clear from the title of the book, and it's Bradley rather than Gilbert we're referring to here.  Tim riley  talk    15:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, absolutely get the point. Leave as is. KJP1 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. Bradley is the author of all the analysis and commentary. It's his book. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Book 7: Franceschina, John - oddly, Google books is giving me a publication date of December 2017, rather than 2018, although the snippet does have 2018. And I think the publisher is a single word BearManor, or actually BearManor Media.
 * Happy to change the spacing, damnedsillyspelling notwithstanding, but not sure what to do about the year. Your call.  Tim riley  talk    15:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the damnedsillyspacing should change as it's their damnedsillyspacing but the book clearly has 2018 on the frontispiece so I'd leave that! KJP1 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. 19:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Book 12: Holoman, D. Kern - there's no consistency at all in the Worldcat listings but, for internal consistency per your listing, I wonder if Concerts du Conservatoire should be capitalised?
 * French capitalisation is an arcane mystery to the Anglo-Saxon. Our MoS says one thing and general French usage says the opposite, and both are right, or at least not wrong. There is no firm rule as there is in English or German. Consistency is desirable, but not, in my view, at the expense of going against an author's preferred version.  Tim riley  talk    15:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Fine. KJP1 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to play Devil's Advocate, since we are following the MOS rule on capitalization of the opera names, now, and since English readers expect caps, why not go with the caps in the book list? I think the book authors will be very happy that we are bringing attention to their works. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with that if you care to do the honours, Ss.  Tim riley  talk    19:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Book 19: Morrison, Richard - the full title is Orchestra: The LSO - a Century of Triumph and Turbulence. Would it help the reader to know its focus is the LSO?
 * On the copy on my shelves the only title on the spine is Orchestra, with the other six words appearing in smaller print on the title page. But no harm in adding the subtitle if wanted. Yours to command.  Tim riley  talk    15:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As above, let's have it as the actual book has it, i.e. the single word. KJP1 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't feel strongly, but I think KJP1's first instinct is right: The subtitle gives essential information to our users. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. I'll add.  Tim riley  talk    19:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Book 20: Rollo Myers - again there's no consistency, but he appears more commonly to publish as Rollo H. Myers.
 * I noticed that when I was looking him up, but again, I feel we should abide by the author's preference even if he changed it later or earlier.  Tim riley  talk    15:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Understood. KJP1 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Book 25 - Pearson, Hesketh - perhaps Harmondsworth, UK, as I don't think it's a commonly known place? Also, I wonder if it's worth noting it's a 1954 reprint of a 1935 original. In other instances, you list the edition.
 * I think this is indeed a straight reprint rather than a new edition, so I wouldn't mention that. Good idea about the location.  Tim riley  talk    15:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And understood again. KJP1 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Book 28: Rosenthal, Harold - You'll know better than I but Worldcat is giving the Earl of Harewood as co-author, although Googlebooks doesn't. Did Lascelles write a foreword?
 * Just so.  Tim riley  talk    15:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

End of Batch 1. KJP1 (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You're clearly cut out for this. Taking to it like a duck to orange.  Tim riley  talk    15:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Source review - batch 2
Batch 2 - inline sources not to the main published books. I'll list them all to check they're working but will embolden any comments, queries.
 * Sources 3/5/19/71 - can't access them as I don't have Grove Online but they work;
 * Sources 6/27 - work fine. Support the contents, as far as my French allows me to check;
 * Source 8 - can't access as subscription site;
 * Source 23 - works fine but does it need an "=" in the title?
 * No. My clumsy typing. Now blitzed.  Tim riley  talk    15:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Source 30 - fine and supports the content;
 * Source 41 - supports the content. I do like "Messager's music has not pleased the public";
 * Source 46 - supports the content;
 * Source 53 - supports the content;
 * Source 55 - can't access this subscription site but it works;
 * Source 57 - another subscription site and in French. But it works;
 * Source 70 - due no doubt to my very poor French, I am not seeing the quote on the linked page. Are we linked to the right page?
 * This is a bit of a pain. Owing to the construction of the site the page you have reached is the nearest you can get by url link to the actual page, which doesn't have its own url and is linked to from this one. I thought of explaining this in the citation, but a concise way of explaining it eluded me and still does. If you go back to the page you will see on the left a little below the middle "Articles de presse" and the first of those links is the one in question. There's another such one to a different page of the same site later with the same problem.  Tim riley  talk    15:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, see the problem and can't see a solution either. Lets leave it. KJP1 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ooh... Since there are two links with the same date, I think we should say that the quote is contained in the first one listed below "Articles de presse". -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm getting a slight throbbing about the temples as my brain overheats. Ss, I have every confidence, without fully understanding it, that what you suggest is a good idea, and I suggest you implement it.  Tim riley  talk    17:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. See if you like it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That will do nicely. Much more concise than I had managed to conceive.  Tim riley  talk    19:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sources 83/88 - can't access this subscription site but it works;
 * Source 91 - Is the wrong program listed here? Programs: 90e année: 1916–17 shows me a Swiss tour and a, cancelled, Spanish tour. I think the French provincial tours are earlier?
 * Changed ref to Holoman's book.  Tim riley  talk    19:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Source 95 - can't access the relevant page but the link works;
 * Source 96 - can't access this subscription site, at least not without parting with $22, but it works;
 * Source 101 - supports the content;
 * Source 111 - supports the content;
 * Source 113 - supports the content;
 * Source 121 - can't access either but they both work;
 * Source 129 - can't access it but it works;
 * Source 130 - can't access it but it works and it's certainly about two pigeons;
 * Source 153 - supports the content;
 * Source 159 - can't access but it works;
 * Source 166 - Isn't the Discography Appendix 5 rather than Appendix 4?
 * Fixed. I genuinely wonder if the linked site has been rejigged since we linked to it. Two egregious errors in relation to it would seem strange.  Tim riley  talk    19:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sources 168-193 inclusive - all present and correct;
 * Source 205 - well, I didn't see 'em in the intro, but I did skip the 175 pages of reproduced score!
 * Source 207 - supports the content;
 * Source 208 - I think you've an unnecessary closing bracket ] at the end of The Little Michus instead of a ";
 * Tim fixed this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Source 209 - supports the content.

Source review - batch 3
Batch 3 - FAC source criteria
 * 1c - well-researched
 * The sources are all of high quality, the article is thoroughly researched and, as far as my meagre knowledge of Mr. Messager goes, appears to cover the relevant literature. The article is very well supported by a depth of inline citations. KJP1 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 2c - Consistent citations
 * The citing is consistent throughout. One quick query - Source 151, The Guardian, 2001, has "p. H17". Is the H a section of the paper? KJP1 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's quickly answered: yes.  Tim riley  talk    19:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Source review - batch 4, and final
Batch 4 - spot-checks against non-online sources
 * Looking at some other source reviews from the Riley FA stable, and at Brian's very helpful essay, I'm not at all sure spot-checks of content against sources are really necessary. You're both hardly first-time nominees! And I have done a fair few with the online sources. That said, I'm very happy to stroll over to the University of Manchester Library where I'm certain they'll have some of the offline sources. But it'll be the early part of next week before I can get there. KJP1 (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * T. Riley of Liverpool comments: Good Lord! They have libraries in Manchester? Your call, of course, but I doubt if the coordinators will wish you to go to that trouble for two serial offenders such as Ssilvers and Tim riley. I shall now get back to following up the outstanding points in your review. If I may say so, the review is a splendid job for a first attempt, and has properly put the nominators on their mettle.  Tim riley  talk    18:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Your checks above are superb, and your sharp eye has helped us to improve the article. It is up to you as to whether you wish to be so generous as to check the offline sources, but everything you have done already has been exceedingly helpful!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I think – mind I say I think – we have dealt with all your points, KJP. Over to you.  Tim riley  talk    19:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You have indeed. And from my perspective you are fine on the sources. I'm very confident that a spot-check of those offline isn't necessary. It's been a pleasure. As Tim knows, I'm a musical illiterate, but I now feel I know Messager like a brother. It's a superb article and I'd happily Support, except I don't think one does after a source review. But you're there without, for which many congratulations. KJP1 (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Good. Well, warmest thanks for your scrupulous review. I echo Ssilvers in thanking you for helping us to improve the article.  Tim riley  talk    20:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * KJP1, for future reference, it's true that most source reviewers don't state "support" on the basis of that alone -- if they declare they're satisfied with the results of the inspection then that's what matters -- but if a source reviewer also happens to look at other key elements such as prose and comprehensiveness and are happy with those, there's no reason they shouldn't declare their support outright. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - Ian, many thanks. I enjoyed it but Brian's not wrong, it's time-consuming! KJP1 (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Image review
, thank you very much for the review. I hope the replies above are satisfactory.  Tim riley  talk    08:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Suggest scaling up all three posters
 * Done, I think. Glad if you (and any other interested editor) will check they now look OK, and perhaps tweak if not.  Tim riley  talk    08:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * File:André-Messager-c1888.jpg: where is that publication date coming from?
 * The publication date given by the Bibliothèque nationale de France is "18..". Our man is still youngish, and hasn't yet lost his hair, but the date is evidently after 1886 as the picture was published with a few bars from Le Deux pigeons (1886) printed below it over the composer's signature. 1888-ish seemed a fair guess, but I now see The Association l'Art Lyrique Français says 1890, and I have amended our date to match. Details on the image page adjusted accordingly.   Tim riley  talk    08:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * File:Melisande.jpg: if the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't of course. (I sometimes wonder if anyone has ever posted a picture to Commons with reliable information.) Now replaced with a {PD-US-1923-abroad} image.  Tim riley  talk    08:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Coord notes
This has not been open too long but has attracted in-depth commentary and has been stable for several days, so I think we can safely close. A couple of minor stylistic points when you have a minute: Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I see a fair few duplinks using the checker; I think in most cases the links occur once in Life and career and once in the Music section, in which case fair enough but pls review in case there are genuine redundancies.
 * Under Recordings we'd probably prefer the subsections with L4 headings rather than bolded, unless MOS explicitly supports the latter.
 * User:Ian Rose, I've addressed the 2nd point. What checker do you use to find duplinks?  -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This one. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:32, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I don't see any that occur in the text more than once in "Life and career" and once in "Music". -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 03:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.