Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Carmen/archive2


 * 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 GrahamColm 13:33, 31 March 2012.

Carmen

 * Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Carmen wasn't a great success when it first appeared. Like most things Bizet attempted, it went off kind of half-cock. And he died during the opening Paris run, never to know the acclaim with which the wider world would greet his masterpiece. Most people know bits of the opera, if only the toreador's song (which Bizet considered a load of merde), included here with other slightly creaky recorded excerpts. The article has been very thoroughly peer-reviewed, and I am as ever grateful to all who have helped in this way. Brianboulton (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources and media but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Check alphabetization of sources
 * Missing bibliographic info for Neef, Lacombe
 * No citations to Batta, Dibbern, Tanner
 * These books removed (Batta is the same as Neef)


 * Check for minor glitches like doubled periods
 * FN 62: maybe specify the keyword needed? "Carmen" brings up 1400+ results
 * FN 74: formatting
 * Where is Teddington?
 * The book has gone


 * FN 88 vs 91
 * Is there no better source than IMDb available for the adaptation?
 * I think IMDb is fine to confirm the existence of a work without critical commentary. I'm not aware of anything better: Amazon? This?


 * Be consistent in whether you include locations for books.
 * File:Henri-Lucien_Doucet_-_Carmen.jpg needs US PD tag, same with File:Carmen_1875_Act1_lithograph_Lamy_NGO1p736.jpg, File:Toreador_song.ogg
 * Do works of art require the US-PD licence as well as PD-art? I have never done this in the past. The soundfile has the PD-US tag already.


 * File:Toreador_song.ogg: first source link appears broken. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed the broken link.


 * Thanks for pointing these out. I have fixed except as noted above. Brianboulton (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments. So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, about two-thirds of the way, at Carmen. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: the "These are my edits" tool hasn't been working the past few days. - Dank (push to talk) 14:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine - I hope you enjoy reading on. Brianboulton (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Continuing. "In the event": Garner's warns that the phrase (which means "in the end" or "as it turned out" outside the US) is likely to be misunderstood by Americans, SOED says the phrase means "in the event of" in AmEng, and American dictionaries (such as M-W) agree that the "as it turned out" meaning is "chiefly British". Cross my heart, most Americans will read "In the event, [he] decided to use parts ..." to mean "In the performance, he decided to use those parts ..."
 * OK, I have rephrased. Brianboulton (talk) 10:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "St. Petersburg": I know that "St." is usually "St" in BritEng, but this might be fine, I don't know.
 * The Brit practice is not to use the full stop when the last letter of the abbreviation is the same as the last letter of the complete word. Thus we say "Mr" not "Mr.", "Mrs" not "Mrs." etc. So it should be "St" not "St." Brianboulton (talk) 10:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * FWIW, "what was now becoming regarded" doesn't sound right to me. - Dank (push to talk) 01:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Tweaked. Brianboulton (talk) 10:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 03:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reading and support. Brianboulton (talk) 10:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Support, assuming source and image concerns are addressed. I weighed in at the PR, and my concerns were addressed. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review and this support, much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Support - from Noleander
 * Lede - Probably should mention that two of the tunes, esp the bullfighter piece, are very, very famous in the Western world, and the Toreador is known to many because it is used in cartoons, ads, etc.
 * I have added a little to the text and lead highlighting the popularity of the toreador's song. I will leave it to the Votre toast article to mention the popular culture aspects of the song, which have nothing to do with the opera. Brianboulton (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Lede - " opéra comique " - I wonder if using that phrase so prominently (in the lead, and highlighted blue) may confuse some readers into thinking the opera is humorous? Maybe move that phrase down into the article body (but keep the thought behind it in the lede).
 * I think the phrase needs to be in the lead as well. I have added a footnote to the main text explaining the distinction from "comic opera" (which will also be evident to users of the link in the lead). Brianboulton (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Lede - " written in the genre of opéra comique with musical numbers separated by dialogue ... including the introduction of recitative in place of the original dialogue ". Could that be reworded to indicate that almost all modern performances outside France are "genuine" fully-sung operas with recitatives.  Someone glancing at that 2nd paragraph may come away thinking that even today it is still performed with spoken dialog.  Maybe a simple change to " ... originally written in the genre .."
 * It is not true that "almost all modern performances outside France are "genuine" fully-sung operas with recitatives". As the text indicates, although mid-20th century attempts to re-introduce the dialogue version outside France were unsuccessful, "late in the 20th century ... dialogue versions [became] common in opera houses outside France..." Brianboulton (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "notices" - Is that UK? "reviews" would be more recognizable to US readers (? I wonder if I made this identical comment in the review of Les pêcheurs de perles :-)
 * You did indeed; I altered it then and have done so again. Brianboulton (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "laureate" - that word won't be known to many readers. Consider "prize winner" or similar?
 * I think most readers won't be puzzled by "laureate" – and "Prix de Rome prize winner" clunks horribly. Brianboulton (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm a non-native English reader/speaker and I had no trouble whatsoever with the word. Eisfbnore  (下さいて話し) 19:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Bizet found that some of the barriers against him had been lifted;" - Which barriers? The conservative repertoires mentioned in the preceding sentence?   Or was there some personal animosity somewhere?  Its a bit confusing because prior it says "Bizet's professional relationship with Léon Carvalho, .." indicating he had few barriers.
 * Rephrased. Brianboulton (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * " At that point, according to Bizet's biographer Winton Dean, "some hitch at the Opéra-Comique intervened", "  - Not sure why a quote is needed there.   The delay is a fact.  Only the suppositions as to the cause of the delay would need attribution inline. No big deal.
 * I left this alone. Brianboulton (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * " "Well, they asked for ordure, and they've got it", he is said to have remarked about the toreador's song" - Is it possible to state who is reporting that quote? It's a pretty wild thing to say, so if it not a certain quote, maybe its provenance should be mentioned in the text.
 * Just about every source refers to Bizet's comment, but none provide any precise ascription. Brianboulton (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * " in an underprepared and toned-down production. " - Can "toned down" be clarified in this context.? Scaled down?  Smaller orchestra?  Excerpted?  Modest production budget?
 * Reworded. Brianboulton (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "The New York Times welcomed Bizet's "pretty and effective work", but compared Zelia Trebelli's interpretation of the title role unfavourably with that of Minnie Hauk. Nevertheless..." - The word "nevertheless" doesnt seem right.  The NYTimes called it "pretty and effective", only one role was criticized. Omit the word?
 * Agreed. Brianboulton (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * " Francesco Rosi's film of 1984, with .." - Perhaps that sentence should be placed above the prior sentence, so the works are listed chronologically.
 * Yes, makes good sense. Brianboulton (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 13:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Overall, the prose is very, very fine.
 * Thank you for these helpful comments and for your support. I have generally followed your suggestions except where indicated. Brianboulton (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Support with a few comments, including two about currency of sources.
 * "De Leuven reluctantly agreed, but his continuing hostility toward the project led to his resignation from the theatre early in 1874"?
 * "but, as Dean comments, 'the triteness lies in the character, not in the music." A closing mark is missing here. I'd add it but I'm unsure if the period is part of the quotation.
 * "it shared the theatre for a while with the much more popular Verdi's Requiem." This seems awkward to me; consider "it shared the theatre for a while with Verdi's much more popular Requiem."
 * I have fixed these three, per your suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "Since then the work has been a permanent feature of the Opéra-Comique's repertory." Uncomfortable citing a source from 1965 for this statement.
 * Yes, you're right. I have taken the statement out, as there could be arguments about what "permanent feature" means. It certainly hasn't been performed at the Opéra-Comique every year - there have been several gaps. The sentence didn't add much anyway. Brianboulton (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm somewhat concerned that you wrap up discussion of the current availability of a "universally recognised full score" with a source published 30+ years ago. What is your level of confidence that no progress has been made on this front?
 * Well, I'm completely confident in the statement but, again, it needs a bit of updating both with text and source. This I have done, using a 2000 source which refers to a couple of new editions but still no final, critical edition. The position hasn't changed since then. Brianboulton (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

This was a pleasure to read. -- Laser brain  (talk)  21:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these comments, your support and kind words. Brianboulton (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Nitpick – Why is the word "act" spelled "Act" in the narration? MOS:CAPS says no such thing; WikiProject Opera/Article guidelines uses "act". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My practice is to use "act" when using the word in a general sense ("an opera in four acts"), and to capitalise act titles (Act 1, Act 2 etc). This seems to be general among the sources, not just the older ones (Dean, Curtiss), but also more recent writers (McClary, Wright, Neef etc). I see nothing in MOS or the opera project guideline that prevents this, though consistency is necessary and I have addressed a few inconsistencies in this respect. Brianboulton (talk) 10:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Support – I took part in the peer review, where such minor quibbles as I had were dealt with to my satisfaction. I agree with Laser brain's remark, above, that this article is a pleasure to read. It meets all FA criteria, in my opinion. Tim riley (talk) 08:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Tim, for your help with the peer review and for your support. Brianboulton (talk) 10:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Support - I took part in the peer review and find that this fully meets the FA criteria. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 11:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Media Review - all of the images and sound files are free, mostly because they were published long enough ago to have entered the public domain or for the last two sound files because they were created under a free license. (Note that I added PD-US tags to the files noted by Nikkimaria above, and thank her for catching that). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 11:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for performing the tedious but essential task of licence-checking and for making the necessary adjustments. Your support is greatly appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.