Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/L'Orfeo/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 SandyGeorgia 18:39, 7 October 2010.

L'Orfeo

 * Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This is Monteverdi's first opera, the third I have brought to FAC. I hope it will complete a featured tryptich of Monteverdi's three surviving operas. Composed at the turning point from Renaissance style to Baroque, the work may sound strange to ears attuned to classical and romantic opera, but it is generally recognised as the first operatic masterpiece. I hope that reading this article will make you want to hear the the work, or see it if the chance arises. Images have been informally checked by Elcobbola; thanks also to the ever-helpful peer reviewers. Brianboulton (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 19:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support for my detailed comments, please see the peer review. Certainly a fine article about an obscure article.  Meets all standards at FAC.  I feel like a child playing with sand when I see the structure and writing in BB's articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a very kind comment. Thanks very much, and for the support. Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * What makes http://icking-music-archive.org/scores/download.php?file=monteverdi/orfeo/notas.pdf a reliable source?
 * Damian H. Zanette is a theoretical physicist but has also done work on linguistic and musical concordance, e.g.  and  (see also: ). Icking refers to Werner Icking Music Archive. I'd consider his notes to the score a reliable source. Voceditenore (talk) 08:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Likewise http://www.amadeusonline.net/almanacco.php?Start=0&Giorno=&Mese=&Anno=&Giornata=&Testo=L%27Orfeo&Parola=Stringa?
 * This came up in the Tosca FAC. I'll copy below the comments I made there: "AmadeusOnline is the website for a well-known Italian classical music print magazine, Amadeus. I've found the Almanac quite reliable. There are occasional errors, but even Grove has them, and it often has production details not present in more general reference books. See the bottom of this page for the sources used to compile the almanac and the CV of its compiler, Gherardo Casaglia." Voceditenore (talk) 07:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * LIkewise, leaving out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * LIkewise http://www.operatoday.com/content/2007/08/monteverdis_lor.php?
 * The reviewers on this site are, generally speaking, not professional critics.. When they were starting up, they even asked me to be a reviewer ;-). I would suggest replacing the reference with this review by Anthony Tommasini in the New York Times. Voceditenore (talk) 07:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have replaced with Tomassini as suggested. If Opera Today didn't employ you as a reviewer, V, I think they missed a trick. Brianboulton (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "NJ" or "N.J." in the refs? Several other spots where you're inconsistent on State abbreviations - "New Haven" instead of "New Haven, CT" which is what would fit better (since the rest seem to give state abbreviations)
 * I think I've standardised these. Brianboulton (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * What a SNEAKY way to get me to review a musical article! (grins)
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (I promise to return to source reviews at FAC as soon as the wedding planning is done... argh!) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments
 * "Towards the end of the 17th century innovative Florentine musicians were developing the intermedio—a long-established form of musical interlude inserted between the acts of spoken dramas—into increasingly elaborate forms" - I'm confused. L'Orfeo was a product of that development of the intermedio, yet it was written in the early 17th century. Do you mean "Towards the end of the 16th century"?
 * "Soloists: alto, two tenors" vs "Soloists: two tenor, one bass" - be consistent in using singular or plural for tenor(s)
 * Is "La musica" correctly translated as "Music" or "the Spirit of Music"?
 * The name of the character is La musica, meaning "music". She represents the "spirit of music". I have clarified this in the prologue synopsis. Brianboulton (talk) 10:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "An echo repeats his final phrases" - an echo, or Eco?
 * The echo is an off-stage sound rather than a character - I have clarified this in the text. The Italian spelling is retained for consistency in the Roles section. Brianboulton (talk) 10:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "before the opera end" - grammar
 * Be consistent with numbering acts with Roman or Arabic numerals
 * "by which he attempts to persuade Charon to allow him to enter Hades" - be consistent in using the Italian name
 * Keep referencing format (particularly multiple-author formatting) consistent between Sources and Further reading
 * Sorry, I don't know what you're referring to. Brianboulton (talk) 10:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Compare "Fortune, Nigel; Whenham, John" in Sources with "Warrack, John and West, Ewan" in Further reading
 * I see, now. Warrack and West has been deleted from Further reading; its brief Orfeo entry doesn't warrant inclusion. Brianboulton (talk) 15:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Is Cambridge University Press in London or Cambridge?
 * Both, and New York, and Melbourne, and La Rochelle... However, since this book specifies the Cambridge address, I have altered the location to Cambridge. Brianboulton (talk) 10:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't include both categories and their subcategories
 * If you're referring to the inclusion of Category:Operas, see the paragraph at the top of the category page. This is standard practice for opera articles. Voceditenore (talk) 08:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Category:1600s operas and Category:1607 operas?
 * The "1600s" category refers to operas written/performed in the decade 1600-09, the "1607" category to those from that specific year. I agree that the note at the top of the 1600s category page is not clear as to what is meant by the 1600s (it could refer to the whole century) and perhaps that could be clarified. Brianboulton (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Why do some of the shortened citations include dates while others don't? For example, Whenham in ref 36 doesn't, but Whenham in ref 37 does. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your review. Except as noted, I have adjusted as per your points; please let me know if you have further queries. Brianboulton (talk) 10:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful work, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I just read this and find it meets all of the FA criteria. I have three minor quibbles, that do not detract from my support.
 * I would link his other two surviving operas Il ritorno d'Ulisse and L'incoronazione - this makes me wish L'Arianna were not lost
 * In Recording history I would give the year for Among more recent recordings, that of Emmanuelle Haim has been praised for its dramatic effect.[81]
 * I got the pun (Speranza means hope), but wonder if it needs to be made more explicitly clear.
 * I have carried out these small fixes. Thanks for your comment and support. Brianboulton (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support 1c is good 2c is good. I previously watched this peer review and commented on the sourcing issues.  I then even went and read the content.  I can actually support a FAC instead of commenting! Fifelfoo (talk) 02:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your peer review comments and support here. Brianboulton (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support I saw this article at peer review. There was very little I could find to quibble about then, and there is nothing at all now. This article is balanced, readable, well-proportioned, impressively referenced and meets all the FA criteria, in my opinion. A first class performance. – Tim riley (talk) 09:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and also for your PR contribution (especially knowing that Monteverdi is not exactly your métier). Brianboulton (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support It's all been said, this is superb. I find Brian's nominations a little frustrating because I have nothing to contribute apart from my admiration. (Although I still get confused over "crenellation" and "crenulation" :-)   Graham Colm (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Smart point, Graham (who says no one reads the alt text?). My understamding is that "crenulations" are rounded. I'll try and check it out. Thanks for your support, and close reading!


 * Support. This is a well-written and excellently sourced article. It would make a superb addition to the roster of Feature Articles on wikipedia. Nicely done Brian.4meter4 (talk) 01:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Tribute to you, too, for some excellent help during the development stages. Brianboulton (talk) 08:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Media review: All okay. Trisnee had vouched for his identity at commons:Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 6 (the email in his claim matches his website), so I am not paranoid over who uploaded it (heh).  Jappalang (talk) 07:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. Very interesting, excellent writing, nicely laid out. Minor point: "This factor, retained into modern times ..." Are things retained into? Maybe "retained until today," or "continued into modern times". Or "This practice, which continues, separates ..." SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, the phrasing didn't read well. After reflection I have cut it altogether; the sentence now reads "This separates Monteverdi's work from the later opera canon, and makes each performance of L'Orfeo a uniquely individual occasion." Thanks for the kind words And support. Brianboulton (talk) 09:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the new wording, thanks. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 11:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Great article  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  02:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


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