Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria/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 Karanacs 16:07, 16 March 2010.

Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria

 * Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 13:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the first of Monteverdi's late operas (he was over 70 when he wrote it). It was very popular because, as one critic says, "It has enough sex, gore and elements of the supernatural to satisfy the most jaded Venetian palate." The same, unfortunately, can't quite be said of the article, which is a sister to Monteverdi's other fruity late piece, L'incoronazione di Poppea, but I've done my best. Thoroughly peer-reviewed (thanks to all), it is now offered for your delectation. Brianboulton (talk) 13:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support: This article was already up to Brianboulton's high standards of writing and research when it was poresented for peer review, and it has since improved. It is clear, informative and comprehensive&mdash;a worthwhile successor to his article on Poppea which is definitely up to FA standards. Jonyungk (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support: I completely agree with the preceding comments by Jonyungk in every particular. It was already impressive when it came to peer review and is now first class FA material.  Tim riley (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I also was involved in the peer review and echo the above praise; all of my minor concerns were addressed there. I note that all but one of the images are PD because of age, and the one fair use image has a proper rationale. Well done as ususal, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, exquisite job all around. Just one nitpick (in the lead), Il ritorno is the first of three full-length works which Monteverdi wrote for the burgeoning Venetian opera industry during the closing years of his life. Closing years of his life might be better as something else; you're free to your opinion, however.  ceran  thor 22:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments. Dab links, external links, and alt text all good. Ucucha 23:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks to all the above for the supports. As to the "closing years" phrase, I've altered it to "last five years", which is more precise.Brianboulton (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, great article. I reviewed it thoroughly, including images and sources, during peer review. No further issues. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  17:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Up to the usual standard; I saw no problems. Johnbod (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Additional thanks to Andy and Johnbod, and to Ealdgyth for her ever-diligent checks. Brianboulton (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Image copyright check:
 * File:PhaecianStoneShip.jpg appears to fail WP:NFCC
 * Can you please say why you think the ship image fails WP:NFCC? Clause 8 reads: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I believe in this instance those conditions are met. The turning of the ship to stone is one of the dramatic highlight of the opera; readers may well wonder how this can be displayed on stage. The image helps significantly in conveying how this might be done. That is the substance of my rationale for fair use; if you disagree, let's hear your reasons. Other editors, here and at peer review, have accepted the rationale. Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I find the image meets all of the NFCC, before I saw it I had no clear idea how one might portray a stone ship on stage and now I do. I also note that, who is extremely knowledgable about fair use, made the current low resolution version of the fair use image in question, and uploaded it. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 18:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I did consider this image's adherence to the NFCC during the peer review. It was my conclusion that depiction of the physical manifestation of a dramatic element (i.e. transformation from prose to stage) is indeed a significant contribution to the reader's ability to understand the work as a performance piece; specifically, I agreed with the rationale provided.  Now, whether the image is relevant to understanding the section it's currently in (synopsis) is perhaps another matter.  I'm not always correct, however, and I'm curious to hear Stifle's elaboration.  Эlcobbola  talk 20:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I placed it in the Act 1 synopsis because that is where the account of the petrification is given. It could easily be relocated in the Modern productions section, if placement is an issue. Brianboulton (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I considered this one for a while when I initially reviewed, and I believe it meets NFCC#8. It is not gratuitous, its contents are discussed, and it definitely is important to reader understanding. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  01:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant WP:NFCC, as a free photo could be taken of a future performance. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The image in question is specific to a production, or projected production, of 46 years ago, a production that will not be repeated. It is patently obvious that a free photograph could not be taken of this image. Whether or not a free photograph from a different production is possible is a different question; I am claiming free use of this image, on the grounds stated. Brianboulton (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The stone ship is sculptural; even a "free" photograph thereof would ultimately be unfree as a derivative work. Эlcobbola  talk 14:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Uploader probably does not have the rights to release File:Penelope - Di misera regina.ogg.
 * This soundfile was uploaded by Trisdee na Patalung, arranger, director and one of the performers of the piece. Trisdee has been inactive on Wikipedia for several years and is unlikely to be available to help. You say he/she probably does not have the right to release the work; who do you think does have this right?  Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Brian here too. The music is clearly old enough to be out of copyright, so if the person who wrote the arrangement, directed the performance, and played in it does not have the rights to release it here, who does? Could the email this user link be tried to contact him? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 18:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You would need permission of the performers also. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No. USC 17 § 102: "Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible  medium of expression...".  Live performance is not a tangible medium.  The elements potentially eligible for copyright are 1) the underlying composition and 2) the sound recording.  Unless the performers themselves wrote the composition or themselves recorded the performance, their permission is neither required nor relevant.  Эlcobbola  talk 15:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No other issues. Oppose pending resolution of these. Stifle (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: the article has been promoted by Karanacs. Brianboulton (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Similir to other opera articles, I think it is a FA. OboeCrack (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.