Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gioachino Rossini/archive1

Gioachino Rossini

 * Nominator(s): Smerus (talk) 12:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC) and Tim riley (talk)

This article is about the composer Gioachino Rossini, and seeks to give cover to both his life and his works. His operas, and notably Il barbiere di Siviglia (The Barber of Seville), are today amongst the most popular and regularly performed throughout the world. Tim and I have sought to bring the article up to the best WP standards and have been greatly assisted by the contributors to a peer review. Ideally we should perhaps have undertaken this last year (150th anniversary of Rossini's death), but better late than never........Smerus (talk) 12:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Support from Wehwalt
per my detailed comments at the peer review, see here.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, Wehwalt, for your input at PR and your support here.  Tim riley  talk   15:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Support from Gerda
Thank you for the changes during the peer review, I don't want to ask for more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Gerda for your support - and for helpful comments at PR.--Smerus (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Image review has minor problems is now fine
For example, File:Rossini-father.png lacks a PD-Art tag, (and also receipt the painting and changes colours unnaturally, but that's more "not best practice"). I cabbage a go at fixing it, but it'll probably take a couple days. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 14:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Adam, I've added the PD-Art. It would be great if you could improve the image, of course.--Smerus (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Heh. My tablet has aggressive autocorrect, it seems. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 23:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Went through and grabbed the highest resolution for every image and checked documentation for everything. Only remaining thing is File:Rossini 7.jpg, which is a book scan, and likely a copy of a photo that's available higher resolution, but nothing that blocks FA. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 01:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Adam, for the review and earlier input.  Tim riley  talk   17:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Nikkimaria
Source review - spotchecks not done


 * Are the title translations your own or based on a source?
 * Mine, but consistent with Grove.  Tim riley  talk   23:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "Ironically, this was an era in which Rossini was not to participate" - see MOS:OPED
 * Have deleted 'Ironically'--Smerus (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Possible to reformat multi-author short cites to avoid squishing author names together? See for example FN34
 * Done--Smerus (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The Janka source is a journal article and should be cited as such
 * Done.--Smerus (talk) 11:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


 * It's in the right section now, but is still formatted as a web source. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * FN101: other cites do not abbreviate page ranges
 * The two quotes cited in the sentence come one from each range.--Smerus (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I understand that - my question is why the second range is abbreviated, when the style throughout is not to do that. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Understood now, corrected.--Smerus (talk) 10:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Given the length of the Newspapers section, probably best to have no columns as opposed to autoset
 * Done.--Smerus (talk) 11:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Use a consistent format for retrieval dates
 * Done now, I think.--Smerus (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Brussels Conservatoire format is still different. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Grove Music Online should be italicized, Brussels Conservatoire should not be
 * I would query this: Brussels Conservatoire is there as a website: GMO as a publication.--Smerus (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Brussels Conservatoire is an organization. GMO is a publication, and publication titles should be italicized. Compare our own article on it. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Brussels Conservatoire here is a website, I'll make that clear. GMO appears here as entry in template which capitalizes it: I think what needs to happen here is to use template:encyclopedia rather than template:web - I've now done this for Doctor, Jennifer, see what you think.--Smerus (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * All done now.--Smerus (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Budden: Can you verify the ISBN? The one given appears to be associated with the 1984 edition
 * Not one of my references. Have you got the book to check?  Tim riley  talk   08:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Nor one of mine....I can't find details for early edition. Or is it the 1984 one which was used all along?--Smerus (talk) 14:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't recall this book at all, but the 1973 London Cassell edition contains the cited info on the cited page. Have changed the ISBN and publisher accordingly.  Tim riley  talk   15:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Gerhard: publisher site gives a different ISBN, can you verify?
 * Ditto.  Tim riley  talk   08:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Corrected.--Smerus (talk) 14:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Gossett: in other cases authors of the larger works are presented in inverted order
 * Sorry (being dense), which Gosset citation are we looking at?  Tim riley  talk   08:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Penguin Opera Guide. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah! Apols for being dim. Amanda Holden is now Holden, Amanda.  Tim riley  talk   20:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Rosselli: state abbreviation is incorrect, and that city is given elsewhere without one
 * corrected--Smerus (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Schwartz: state abbreviations elsewhere use two-letter postal codes
 * corrected--Smerus (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * MOS:POSTABBR has some guidance on abbreviations for US states. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Abbreviation is now correct, but why include it here and not for Bel Canto Operas. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Suggest creating a separate section for liner notes, rather than distributing them among sections
 * Done.--Smerus (talk) 11:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


 * How does Hamilton meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?
 * Hamilton is a very distinguished (imo) musician and writer (see the WP article on him). " Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence" - but as Hamilton has subsequently had his musicological work published by Cambridge and Oxford University Presses I believe it passes this test.--Smerus (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you satisfied with the source review, Nikki? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Looks like there are still some items pending. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , i think the remainder are in your department.....--Smerus (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we are there, after a bit of heaving and shoving. I hope Nikkimaria agrees!  Tim riley  talk   20:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Almost - still pending Janka and date format from above list. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * , I've now made these two corrections, also added missing state to Portland and translator of Heine. Best, --Smerus (talk) 06:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Last thing is Janka - we're now using the correct template, but given the parameters used its presentation actually hasn't changed. You could try using the PMID or DOI to autofill the ref if that would help - it should include things like journal title, volume, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Now properly sourced and formatted (I believe). The US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health are not the publishers - they just share on their site the English abstract from the Hungarian journal now cited.--Smerus (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Yep, this is fine - doesn't need a retrieval date since the other journal articles don't have one, but otherwise good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments by/Support from Dmass
Unencumbered by any knowledge of Rossini's life or works, my comments are stylistic only and, so far, of the minutely pedantic variety - a good sign, I suspect.

Lead


 * Maybe split the sentence beginning ‘During this period’ - it’s very long...
 * Done--Smerus (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Should ‘regularly attended’ be ‘frequently attended’?
 * I think they were 'regularly attended'. 'Frequently' might suggest that there could have been some which were not attended by these types.--Smerus (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur. I seem to remember that Dmass caught me, most amiably, on the back foot about regularly-v-frequently in another review, and I have taken the point, but I think "regularly" is right here.  Tim riley  talk   00:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Early Life


 * 'Giuseppe was imprisoned at least twice: first in 1790 for insubordination to local authorities in a dispute about his employment as town trumpeter, and in 1799 and 1800…’ - should the comma be a semi-colon?
 * Agnostic, but happy to go with that for now.  Tim riley  talk   00:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd be inclined to treat "in 1790" and "in 1799 and 1800" as comma-delineated clauses, but my punctuation tastes are quite Victorian. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 06:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Naples
 * 'After an unsuccessful opening night…’ - would ‘Despite…’ catch the sense better?
 * Looks good. Done.  Tim riley  talk   00:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Penultimate para: ‘…others of his operas…’ - I think it should be ‘other of his operas’, but ready to stand corrected.
 * Oh, Lord! I get in a Hell a tangle over these combinations of adjectives and nouns. I'd like to see if anyone else has a view on this.  Tim riley  talk   00:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Vienna and London

An excellent read, as is to be expected from this team. More to come when I can. Dmass (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * '...his biographers describe it as, "unprecedentedly feverish enthusiasm”…’ - surely no comma needed?
 * Quite so. Deleted.  Tim riley  talk   00:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Penultimate para: it would be nice to avoid the repetition ‘failure to provide…failed to pay’, if possible.
 * Done.  Tim riley  talk   00:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Dmass. Looking forward to more.  Tim riley  talk   00:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

More nitpickery from me.

Paris
 * 2nd para: ’the’ needed before ‘centre of musical attention'
 * Done.  Tim riley  talk   08:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Last para: formatting glitch - ‘1804 play’ shouldn't be italicised (and maybe only link ‘play’?)
 * Done. (Italicising "play" came about as an inavdertent consquence of acting on an earlier reviewer's suggestion. Now amended.)  Tim riley  talk   08:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Early retirement
 * 2nd para: 'The reasons for Rossini's withdrawal from opera have been continually discussed during and since his lifetime’ - surely not continually… Perhaps ‘at length’ or ‘extensively’?
 * I'll defend "continually". Not "continuously", I grant you, but the Shorter Oxford says of "continually", "frequently recurring", which seems to me to be about right. I want to emphasise that every generation of musical historians has had a go at this mystery.  Tim riley  talk   08:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 'Some have supposed that aged thirty-seven, in variable health, having...’ - the subclauses are a bit of a pile-up to my ear. Maybe: ’Some have supposed that, aged thirty-seven and in variable health, having...'
 * Indeed. Done.  Tim riley  talk   08:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Fourth para: I’m not sure ‘in pique’ is an expression. I’d say ‘in a fit of pique’ or ‘out of pique’. Google suggests ‘in a pique’ exists (although I’ve never heard anyone say it).
 * Tweaked.  Tim riley  talk   08:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 'Gossett and Richard Osborne suggest …’ - not sure why Osborne is (nearly always) given with his first name, when other critics and scholars aren't. In fact the current score is Richard Osborne 6 : 1 Osborne (sorry, Tim, it’s now traditional).
 * The score should be 7-0, because we refer to both Charles Osborne and Richard Osborne, both admirable critics, who need to be distinguished from each other in the text, and use of first name seems the simplest method. I'll amend the rogue isolated surname.  Tim riley  talk   08:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Afterthought: now I look again, I see we don't mention Charles Osborne by name in the main text, but even so, as he is referred to, and listed among the sources, I think we need to make the distinction between the two gents at each mention of RO. (Views to the contrary will not be disdained.) The one unadorned Osborne is now safely swathed in a forename.  Tim riley  talk   08:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * May I humbly propose "R. Osborne"? It'll flow better in lists, and is more immediately clear it's iintended to distinguish two scholars. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 16:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I shouldn't object to that. Has anyone else got any thoughts on the matter? All views gratefully received.  Tim riley  talk   16:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 'he suffered from bouts of debilitating depression, which some commentators have linked to cyclothymia,[96] or bipolar disorder,[97] or reaction to his mother's death’ - I think it might be clearer as follows: 'he suffered from bouts of debilitating depression, which commentators have linked to various causes: cyclothymia,[96] bipolar disorder[97] or a reaction to his mother's death'.
 * Better. Done.  Tim riley  talk   08:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 'But although Otello could at least claim to be genuine, canonic, Rossini’ - second comma surely not needed?
 * Not needed grammatically, certainly, but I think it gives desirable emphasis. I half subscribe to the heretical school that believes that commas can he used to indicate tone of voice, places to pause etc as well to serve their formal function of roping off relative clauses etc.

More in due course...Dmass (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking forward to them, and thank you for the batch above. All very much ad rem.  Tim riley  talk   08:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Last batch

“The Code Rossini"
 * ‘...it may be noted that a formulaic approach was logistically indispensable for Rossini's career, certainly at the start’ - maybe plainer language: ‘...was necessary, certainly at the start of Rossini’s career’?
 * Yes, that's plainer, I agree, but I wanted to convey something of the businesslike attitude....--Smerus (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * 'For La Cenerentola (1817), for example, he had just over three weeks to create the score’ - wouldn’t the plainer ‘write the music’ work?
 * Yes - will do.--Smerus (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I think a hyphen is needed in 'the typical eighteenth century handling’ (compound adjective)
 * Will do.--Smerus (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * In the ’structure’ section, it seems odd not to mention Mozart, since the best-known (and best) examples of 18th-century act finales are in the da Ponte operas. And can it really be said that Rossini ever ’surpassed’ the finale of Act 2 of Figaro (for example) which is a pretty perfect comic construction - and better music too...


 * I wasn't seeking here to be comparative, but more to stress how R. 'moved back' and extended the finale section as a proportion. Let me see if I can find an apposite opinion which would fit here and point the issue.--Smerus (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Italy, 1813-1823
 * 3rd para - ‘wakening interest’ sounds a bit archaic to my ear - ‘arousing’?
 * But I'm an archaic kind of fellow, which I don't think makes my style culpable by WP standards....but I actually agree that arounsing is better here.--Smerus (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * 'to seek to use its lessons to advance themselves’ - maybe avoid the multiple infinitives: ‘and used its lessons to advance themselves’?
 * Will do--Smerus (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Withdrawal
 * Isn’t a fair amount of the material in the first para already covered in the biographical section?
 * Yes and no. I do feel that I'm covering it here more from the musical angle than the biographical., what do you feel?--Smerus (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree – well I would, wouldn't I? – but for composer FAs we have, it seems to me, reached a shambolic and probably ultra vires consensus over the years that Life and Works articles can be treated, to some extent, as two articles rolled into one, so that a judicious amount of repetition of material and blue-links etc is OK and helpful to the reader who looks at one or the other section. –  Tim riley  talk   20:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Influence and Legacy
 * Apart from the Shaw quotation, there’s little to counter-balance the positive assessment of the music. There’s a whole body of opinion which is much less favourable. Take Berlioz in the Memoirs: 'As to Rossini and the rage for him which possessed the fashionable Parisian world, it aroused my passionate indignation … Rossini's melodious cynicism, his contempt for the traditions of dramatic expression, his perpetual repetition of one kind of cadence, his eternal puerile crescendo, and his crashing big drum, exasperated me to such a degree as to blind me to the dazzling qualities of his genius and the real beauties of his masterpiece, the Barbiere, with its delicate instrumentation and no big drum.'
 * Nice quote and good point. Let me think on this. Have added a bit of this. Many thanks by the way for your help in raising these points.--Smerus (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Apart from these (very minor) points, more than happy to support. Clear, extremely informative and very readable. Dmass (talk) 14:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, Dmass, for your detailed and helpful input, and for your support.  Tim riley  talk   12:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Support from KJP1
Apologies, late getting to this. I had my, very limited, input at PR, here and it was an excellent article then. Pleased to Support. KJP1 (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, KJ, for your input at PR and for your support here. Greatly valued.  Tim riley  talk   19:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim
I don't know if it's normal for music articles, but this seems to be full of opinions such as "great success", "remarkable", "hero's welcome" and the like. I don't doubt that these are sourced, but a sourced opinion is still one writer's view, not an objective fact. I'd welcome some clarification on this. Jimfbleak - talk to me?  14:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I hope music articles are no more opinionated than others. To me (who did not write this section) the expressions you cite seem justified by the context and indeed conform with the sources. After the first 'remarkable' there is however a second which follows in short order which  may wish to adjust....--Smerus (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. First one is now "considerable". On the general point, there is no absolute criterion for success (or failure, for that matter) and we have to follow the sources. I was writing about a later composer recently and found a contemporary article that said something to the effect that anything over 100 performances was regarded as a good run in Paris in the 1880s (long after Rossini), but even that is not objective: a piece expensively mounted in a large house might run for over 100 performances and lose money; a modest piece in a small house could make a profit with a lot less than 100 performances.     Tim riley  talk   07:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * ’’ I don’t like the repeat of “fame” in first para and I’m not sure that “gained fame” is either NPOV or necessary
 * I see Smerus is on the case, and will await his first comments.  Tim riley  talk   21:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC
 * Changed the repeat to 'popularity'. Not sure why 'gained fame' could be construed as NNPOV- his operas were the source of his fame, not his other works, and I feel the article makes this clear.--Smerus (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * ’’ Venice, Milan, Ferrara, Naples ‘’ &mdash; link?
 * I would think these are all well-enough known; Ferrara might perhaps be marginal.--Smerus (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * ’’ Il barbiere di Siviglia (known in English as The Barber of Seville)’’ &mdash;I’d give translations of all or none
 * The rationale for this arose from discussions at peer review.--Smerus (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Link mass, cantata, sonata
 * I believe these may be sufficiently current not to need a link - ?--Smerus (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So do I, though don't tell the MoS purists. Whether a link is actually helpful to the reader depends on the context. I can't imagine that anyone penetrating this far into the article needs a link to explain "mass" etc.  Tim riley  talk   23:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * more later Jimfbleak - talk to me?  14:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * many thanks for these comments, awaiting further. Best, --Smerus (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't really see any other serious issues. However, I'm not quite clear that my leading point has been resolved. I'm not convinced that article this doesn't contain more opinions than many biographies, but given the experience of the authors, I'm prepared to take this on trust, as with not linking to cities. However, the comment which may wish to adjust seems to be hanging in the air at the moment and needs resolution one way or another Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  07:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Jim, for your comments and suggestions. All addressed now, I think.  Tim riley  talk   07:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks,changed to support above now Jimfbleak - talk to me?  06:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your support, Jim. Greatly appreciated.  Tim riley  talk   12:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Schrocat

 * Support. per my earlier comments at the PR. Further readthroughs show no problems I may have missed earlier. To my eye this meets the FA criteria from a prose point of view. - SchroCat (talk) 08:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Splendid! Thank you, SchroCat, for earlier input and support here.  Tim riley  talk   12:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Coord note
I don't really see anything holding up promotion now but there are quite a few duplinks that could be rationalised; I realise duplicating names/terms in the bio section vs. the music section is probably deliberate, and no issue with that, but there seem to be some dups within those sections, and that might be overdoing it -- pls let me know if you need a link to the latest duplink checker to help spot them. I expect to close this later today, Sydney time, but will leave for now if you want to discuss this or anything in my light pre-promotion copyedit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , I've just tinkered lightly with the sentence about Berlioz, otherwise your copyedits seem fine to me. (Tim may have some comments of course). As you say, replication of links in the two sections is deliberate, but can you point me to the duplink checker?--Smerus (talk) 08:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Here you go... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Text: happy with the current version as tweaked by Ian and Smerus. Dup links: I have the tool installed, but plainly omitted to use it on the almost-finished draft – duh! (Thank you, Ian.) Life section pruned, but there are two I'd v. much like to keep: each is a link to one article from two different terms (Mosè in Egitto/Moïse et Pharaon; dramma serio/dramma per musica), which think might be helpful to the reader. –  Tim riley  talk   10:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well I think key thing is "helpful to the reader" and I'm sure the latest state of the links fulfills that criterion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 10:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)