Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/L'Arianna/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 User:GrahamColm 10:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC).

L'Arianna

 * Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I did most of the work on this article, about an early Monteverdi opera, nearly two years ago. I originally meant it to be about the "Ariadne's Lament" – the only surviving music – but decided to expand, add context and tell the story of the opera, which is historically important and deserves its own article, I think. It has had a couple of talkpage reviews, mainly from users Dictioneer and Tim riley, with others adding comments on specific aspects. I have polished it up and prepared it for ths FAC, but no doubt I've not caught everything. All comments welcomed. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Support Another nice article from you, which I anticipate supporting. Consider the following Comments resolved and struck : --Stfg (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Lede: "severe pressure of time" is a little awkward; "severe time pressure"?.
 * Don't agree: I think the existing wording is more natural. Tim riley (talk) 23:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think "pressure of time" is the more usual BritEng idiom. Brianboulton (talk)
 * Well, I'm British too, so I think it's more local than that. But OK. --Stfg (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Lede: "the composer would later say"; he did say it :) so just "the composer later said".
 * Touché! I regularly castigate the "would" format in my reviews. It is occasionally justifiable, but not in this case. Brianboulton (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Historical context: "Il ballo delle ingrate ("Dance of the Ungrateful Ladies")" -- is this the standard translation in the literature? If so, please ignore this comment; otherwise, lacking some word like donne, "Women" would be better.
 * Of the various sources, Ringer uses "Ladies"; none of the others give a translation. I will footnote this if you think it significant. Brianboulton (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No need for a footnote, thanks. I was just checking. --Stfg (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Historical context: "the former of these"; just "the former", which already implies "these".
 * Yes, fixed Brianboulton (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Historical context: "The duke decreed that the wedding opera would be based on the myth of Arianna (Ariadne), for which Rinuccini would write the text." Suggest changing would to should, and avoid implying that Rinuccini wrote the text for the original myth. So: "The duke decreed that the wedding opera should be based on the myth of Arianna (Ariadne), and that Rinuccini should write the text."
 * Much better - changed. Brianboulton (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Libretto, 1st sentence: "born in Florence in 1562" has no bearing on what the sentence says otherwise, and it clutters it. We don't really need this information about Rinuccini in this article, do we?
 * Since there is a linked article on Rinuccini, I suppose we don't. Removed. Brianboulton (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Composition: "It is likely that Monteverdi began ..." is a bit verbose. "Monteverdi probably began ..." ?
 * Roles: "a matter of uncertainty" is a bit verbose; just "uncertain"?
 * I have got rid of both verbosities. Brianboulton (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Revival: Venice, 1639–40: "... the duke did not, as he had with L'Orfeo the previous year, request a second showing" seems a bit awkward. How about "... the duke did not request a second showing, as he had with L'Orfeo the previous year" ?
 * I am happy with that. Brianboulton (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Except for the first I agree with Stfg's suggestions.Tim riley (talk) 23:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Editions: inconsistency as to whether there's a comma between the place name and the date. (I feel it's beter with the comma, but not strongly.) --Stfg (talk) 10:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree that commas give better presentation, and have made them standard. Thank you for the review and for some very helpful points. Brianboulton (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Welcome, and thanks again for a top-notch article. --Stfg (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

BB has been polishing this piece on and off for some time, and I have had the pleasure of commenting now and again during the polishing. Though not a Monteverdi fan I have greatly enjoyed this article. It is comprehensive, thoroughly and widely referenced, and beautifully written. It almost makes me wish Monteverdi's score had not been lost. In my opinion this article meets all the FA criteria, and moreover is an example of why people turn to WP for information – nothing I can find freely available on the web comes anywhere near its quality, and even such subscription sites as Grove offer nothing half as thorough. This is an article of which both the nominator and Wikipedia as a whole should feel very proud. Tim riley (talk) 22:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support


 * Tim, thank you for your steadfast help at several stages in this article's genesis, all the more noble knowing that Claudio is far from your preferred territory. Your words here, and your support, are much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 22:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Support Just a few quibbles.
 * Lede
 * I would split the final sentence of the second paragraph
 * " it had almost killed him" I think you can safely do without the "had" and it would be more effective.
 * Creation
 * "working span" suggest "career".
 * "Rinuccini moved easily between the main Medici court in Florence and that of Marie de' Medici in Paris." Hmm. The phrasing seems a bit oblique.
 * I'd say "unnecessary" rather than "oblique"; I've removed it. Brianboulton (talk) 22:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Do the sources have any interesting speculation as to the circumstances of the pressure that Monteverdi was under?
 * I think the presssure was from the overall workload – composing three important works against the clock, while in post as the duke's maestro della musica. His wife had died the previous year, which can't have helped, as he had two youngish children. I don't want to clog up the main text with circumstantial detail, but I will frame an appropriate footnote. Brianboulton (talk) 22:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * – which I have now done. Brianboulton (talk) 13:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I had never thought of Virginia as an Italian name.
 * I imagine it derives from the Italian word "vergine" as in "Beata Vergine". It was indubitably her name. Brianboulton (talk) 22:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * FWIW, direct from Latin, not through vergine, and even the relation to virginity is not completely beyond doubt. Quite a surprise, that, but see Etymology Online. --Stfg (talk) 23:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Performance history
 * Wouldn't it be simpler to put the Croatian matter in chronological order, first mention the possible Dubrovnik performance and then the translation?
 * "The popularity of this and succeeding works" I think I would change "succeeding" to "other".
 * The final two sentences, on the great success of the revival, and its replacement "within a few weeks" seems an odd juxtaposition.
 * That's the way theatrical works were in those days. "Great success" did not, unfortunately, mean "long run" – or even that the music would survive. Brianboulton (talk) 22:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Recordings
 * " in both its madrigal and its solo voice formats." I'm trying to match these against the versions described in the previous section and not having a great deal of success. There were three?  Plus some later variations? The phrasing here suggests that only two versions have survived.
 * Excellently done.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Image review all images except one were published or painted long ago and have their copyrights, if any, expired. One is modern.  All have appropriate licenses, so everything seems in order.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for these comments which, except if I have noted otherwise, have been incorporated into the article. On the recording, I am checking, but I think only the 5-voice madrigal and the solo version, not the sacred hymn, were recorded. Thanks also for the images review, and for your support. Brianboulton (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I can confirm no recordings of the sacred hymn appear to exist, but I hesitate to say this specifically in case one turns up. I have slightly altered the phrasing. Brianboulton (talk) 13:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Support
 * The final sentence of the second paragraph in the lede looks to be a bit long.
 * Split at an earlier reviewer's request. Brianboulton (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "She is said to have learned the part of Arianna in six days..." -- Do we know who said this?
 * Yes, we do. I have amended the text accordingly. Brianboulton (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Is the first of the eight "editions" missing a closing period?
 * Well spotted indeed. Brianboulton (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

A wonderful job as usual. --  Cassianto Talk   08:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, kind words and support. Brianboulton (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Support. I looked through this a couple of weeks ago and made a couple of tiny changes. As usual, this is a very high quality article that ranks alongside Wikipedia's best. - SchroCat (talk) 10:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the small fixes and for your support here. Brianboulton (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Missing full bibliographic detail for Fenlon, Redlich, Rosand 1991
 * I must apologise for not updating the refs and sources sections before making this nom. The articl has changed several times, sources have been added (not always by me), others discarded. I have added full details for the others and removed the redundant ones (NB Rosand 1991 should be 2007 - the ref is from the later edition). Brianboulton (talk) 00:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Be consistent in whether states are abbreviated and if so, how
 * I have always understood that "New York" does not need a "N.Y." specified. As far as I know the "CT" and "N.J." abbreviations are correct. Brianboulton (talk) 00:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've fixed it. They represent two different types of state abbreviations and so are not consistent with each other.  I've changed N.J. to NJ.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Brianboulton (talk) 13:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Why include date for Carter short cites sometimes?
 * It's to avoid any possible confusion with the other (non-book) Carter citations Brianboulton (talk) 00:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No citations to Arnold & Fortune, Benward & Saker, either of the Rosand 2007s
 * See above. Brianboulton (talk) 00:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * None of the Grove links will open for me, although I have a subscription - is this a local or temporary problem, or are the URLs specific to a particular provider/account? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * All four Grove links opened for me using library barcode login in the UK. --Stfg (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I can open the Grove links too. Tim riley (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC) (Duh! And will gladly check if wanted and Nikkimaria can't.) Tim riley (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources review. Brianboulton (talk) 00:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Support by Ruhrfisch I made a few comments on this article on Brian's talk page and have re-read it. I find it fully meets the FA criteria, and agree that is a fine addition here. I have a few comments, which do not detract for my support.
 * perhaps tighten to "...("Dance of the Ungrateful Ladies"), with a text by Ottavio Rinuccini." in ''...and a setting of the dramatic ballet Il ballo delle ingrate ("Dance of the Ungrateful Ladies"), the text for which was by Ottavio Rinuccini.
 * Absolutely agree Brianboulton (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * This might be AmEng vs BritEng, but I think that "between X and Y" OR "from X to Y" reads better for years, but not what is in the caption ...which Monteverdi served as a court musician between 1590 to 1612
 * It was supposed to be as you suggest - what I had made no sense at all. Now corrected. Brianboulton (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Stray quotation mark between these sentences - is it from a broken quote? The duke decreed that the wedding opera should be based on the myth of Arianna (Ariadne), and that Rinuccini should write the text." Monteverdi was instructed to provide the music.[9]
 * Deleted. Brianboulton (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Parallel construction - should it be "a prologue" in both places? ''The libretto published in Venice in 1622 takes the form of a prologue and eight scenes,[15] although other arrangements of the text have been suggested. For example, the musicologist Bojan Bujić has posited an alternative of prologue and five scenes.[16]
 * Regulated Brianboulton (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * In the table in the Roles section, would it be possible to add the voice part (alto, etc.) for the roles whose casting is not known? Also why are two roles "not established" and one "not known"?
 * I have standardised to "not known". As to the voice types, in the absence of the music and without knowing who played these parts, we can't be certain about the voice types. However, since it is possible that Andreini, who was a soprano, doubled the part of Amore, that part was probably written for a soprano. Similarly, if (as has been mooted) the part of Venere was given to a possible substitute for the soprano Martinelli, that part, too. was presumably written for a soprano voice. I have added this to the table as reasonable speculation. As for the Nuntio, no information is available so no details can be added. Brianboulton (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Ultra-picky, but isn't the Minotaur usually referred to as being in a labyrinth (singular)? They are fleeing from Crete, where the pair have been complicit in the slaying of Ariadne's monster half-brother, the Minotaur, in the labyrinths below the palace of her father, King Minos.
 * Yes, since "labyrinth" is defined as "a maze of passages", the singular form is the more correct. Brianboulton (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Would "for Ariadne" be clearer than "for her" in ''Cupid offers to rekindle Theseus's passion for her, but Venus has decided to unite her with the god Bacchus, and requests Cupid to arrange this.
 * Done. Brianboulton (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Since opera is linked in the lead, should it also be linked in the very minimal Inf*b*x?
 * With the two words so close together, I don't think this is necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Well done! Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for these comments, the support and for help along the line. Brianboulton (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

 Comments Support from Gerda

Great article! Minor comments:
 * Lede
 * Immediate repetition of librettist's name
 * Might we also say something like "one of the earlist operas at all"? "influential" comes later
 * The place Mantua appears late.
 * I have slightly reorganised the lead to meet these points. Brianboulton (talk) 09:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Historical context
 * I would prefer the pic right - it's my old training about image location ;)
 * I don't see any advantage in doing so. Brianboulton (talk) 09:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I am confused about the date of the wedding, "planned for May", later termed "postponed to 28 May" - was it planned for earlier in May?
 * Clarified. Brianboulton (talk) 09:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Lamento
 * "the "Prelude" and the "Liebestod"" - not only for this article: they are often performed together, shouldn't they be covered by one article or at least a redirect? In any case "Liebestod" would be better matched by "Vorspiel". (What would Wagner say if he saw the scene referred to as an aria as in the present article? Perhaps no link until it is improved)
 * As was pointed out during the review stages, the "Prelude and Liebstod" is a concert arrangement, not part of Wagner's opera. Let us not get bogged down in an issue which has little to do with this article beyond the fact that an analogy was made by a critic. Brianboulton (talk) 09:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I must say that "sorrow, anger, fear, self-pity, desolation and a sense of futility" rang a bell with me ;) - Putting self-pity aside: I prefer the box on the talk, thinking that time, place and the renowned librettist deserve their place on something like the article's title page - instead of the present white space, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for these comments. You will observe that the time, place and renowned librettist are all given in the article's opening paragraph, and I prefer to stick to the present arrangement, although your views on the matter are, as always, most welcome.  Brianboulton (talk) 09:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for adjusting. I will talk about the sense of futility, but not here ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And thank you for your support. Brianboulton (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * One more: the composer looks "too old" for a work originally composed in Mantua, how is this this, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice pic, but the source needs to be explicit; at present the link is uninformative. This is not a FAC matter, and can be discussed further on the talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Coordinators:: I'm a bit puzzled as to why this is still here. Seven supports (6 since 28 September), no opposes, no image or sources issues outstanding. There may be be good reasons for keeping it here, but I am going away in a few days' time, and would like to know if there's anything that needs doing. Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 20:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.