Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/L'incoronazione di Poppea/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 03:10, 28 November 2009.

L'incoronazione di Poppea

 * Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Monteverdi (with a little help from his friends) wrote Poppea when he was 76 years old. It's a terrific example of early baroque opera, with a controversially amoral storyline in which virtue is trounced and vice is triumphant. It is still hot stuff in the opera houses. My thanks to members of the Opera Project for their help, and to the peer reviewers who have helped polish the article's rough edges and make it a feasible FAC nomination. Brianboulton (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment it's got no dabs, it's got no dead external links, it's got alt text that looks solid at first check, it's got consistent Day Month Year dates, and it's got Roman courtesans wearing next to nothing, so the technical aspects look good. --an odd name (help honey) 23:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - This was already in very good shape when I peer reviewed it, and all of my concerns were met there, so I feel it fully meets the FAC criteria. Well done, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. Brianboulton (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. This article was already a fine one when I peer reviewed it; if anything, it has become finer still. To me, it fully mirrors the scope, reader interest and overall quality expected of an FA. Excellent work! Jonyungk (talk) 00:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review comments and helpful suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. I too peer reviewed the article, found little to grumble at then, and find nothing whatever to grumble at now. It is a good read, packed (but not overloaded) with information, widely and to all appearances judiciously sourced, with thorough notes and refs, and well-proportioned. I echo the applause given above. FA most decidedly, I'd say. – Tim riley (talk) 11:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these kind words and for the excellent help given earlier. Brianboulton (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Support. Mostly beautifully written. I'll return if I can find time. Got down to the end of "Morality". Tony  (talk)  12:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "In a departure from traditional literary morality it is the adulterous liaison of Poppea and Nerone which is celebrated, although in Busenello's version of the story all the major characters are morally compromised, and the triumph is demonstrated by history to have been transitory and hollow." The thematic equative carries the meaning of "this" and not something else is celebrated. I didn't pick up what would otherwise have been celebrated. The adultery, then, is the triumph? It's a confusing sentence, with three claims that are hard to relate to each other.
 * I've reordered the phrasing so that the three statements are better sequenced, and to clarify what the triumph is.
 * "Monteverdi moved to Venice, becoming director of music at St Mark's Basilica, where he remained until his death in 1643." Would it still be accurate to change this to "... Venice to take up the position of director ...". If so, it might be smoother.
 * Yes, that works better - changed.
 * "For the 1639–40 carnival, Monteverdi revived L'Arianna at the Teatro San Moisè, and later that season produced his setting of ..." The theme is the carnival, but is "later that season" still the carnival?
 * "season" means "carnival season". I could make this explicit by rewording the sentence "For the 1639–40 carnival season, Monteverdi revived L'Arianna at the Teatro San Moisè and later produced his setting of ..." Does that read better?
 * It does. Tony   (talk)  15:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, the revised version is now adopted. Brianboulton (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I wondered about the interpersonal epithet, undoubtedly.
 * You're right, it doesn't read well. I've reworded: "...but the story is based on real people, and refers to actual events."
 * I've made assumptions in joining the list of historical/fictional differences into a whole, with semicolon boundaries. Please check. Is the last statement part of it?
 * I've no problem with the repunctuation as you've done it. The Lucan statement can be part of it, but reads equally well as a follow-on sentence.
 * "It includes a paean of praise to an unnamed singer who played the role of Poppea, which suggests that the manuscript may have been copied during a performance." What, in real time, aurally? Or is the implication that the singer when off-stage sat at a table and wrote it out?
 * The source (Rosand) says "It is as if the copying took place as the performance transpired", so yes, it might well have been copied in real-time. This is the libretto, mind, not the music. I'm sure that trained copyists had good shorthand speeds - and much of the text of opera is very repetitive.
 * Sure, but the text in this article is vague, and doesn't actually reflect the fact that Rosand was not really speculating as to the facts of the transcription, but toying with an "as if it were", i.e., the quality. Tony   (talk)  15:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think Rosand is idly "toying". From my reading of the passage she is saying that the characteristics of the Udine libretto give the impression that it was copied during a performance, an impression strengthened by the paean of praise to the singer of the Poppea role. I have reworded my prose to be less vague on this issue, and I think it now properly represents the source. Brianboulton (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "accomplice"—bank robbery?
 * Accomplice as in partner in crime.
 * Yes, was it a crime to write the music in collaboration? Tony   (talk)  15:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You've lost me. The only use of the word "accomplice" that I can find is in the plot summary, thus: "Threatened with torture unless she names her accomplices, Drusilla decides..." Where is the use of the word that you are referring to? Brianboulton (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Are the details of the Savage publication somewhere in the reference list? It's a third-party citation, from Ringer. Same for Rosand, but I'm too lazy to check.
 * The details of the Savage publication are given in ref 22. As for the Rosand quote (ref. 23), Ringer doesn't clearly specify which of Rosand's many works he is quoting; I suspect it's from a magazine article.
 * I checked for spaced en or unspaced em dashes, and found the latter first off. Then I found the former at a later stage. Oh dear, I won't touch any more; can you decide? It's inconsistent in a number of places.
 * I'll check through for consistency.
 * Checked, all mdashes now, no surrounding spaces. Brianboulton (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I unlinked chain-links: if you hit "Don Giovanni", the more specific, you get a link straight to Mozart. Better for the readers as a single, smaller patch of blue.
 * OK, no problem
 *  Tippett conducting? He was a terrible conductor, despite my adoration of some of his music; the evidence is plain as pie on YouTube, and in the fact that the BBC banned him from coming within 400 feet of the rehearsal platform for the first performance of his Symphony No. 2.
 * Well, what can I say?
 * Like me, slightly too many commas.
 * I'll try and knock out a few.
 * Glyndebourne looks bizzare.
 * Too cryptic for me, I'm afraid.
 * The B and W pic? Tony   (talk)  15:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well, 1962, I think they mainly did b&w in those days. Brianboulton (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words and helpful comments which I have addressed, though I can't do much about Tippett's conducting. I'll keep working on the commas and dashes. Brianboulton (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - (Note: I peer reviewed the article recently.) This is a well-researched and well-written article that clearly explains its topic. I would like to note that the questions I raised about the research at the peer review were adequately answered, so, in particular, I would like to emphasize that I think this article meets 1c. I also performed an image review during my peer review, so if no new images have been added to the article, in my opinion, the article also meets criterion 3. Awadewit (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As always your help and suggestions are much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. Article seems to meet criteria and is well-written. Dog  poster  21:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments Fifelfoo (talk) 22:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2c: Dates are consistent in citations.
 * Is "Oxford Music Online." an unpublished source? If it is published, please cite using italics as per your style.
 * Oxford Music Online is a website, the leading online resource for musical researchers. The format is consistent with that used for other web sources, per the "cite web" template. Brianboulton (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't a cite web though. See "How to Cite Grove Music Online" which is the actual service you're using.  As a charity, here's a Chicago, "Tim Carter and Geoffrey Chew. "Monteverdi, Claudio." In Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/44352pg3 (accessed November 24, 2009)."
 * For wikipedia treat as a book. cite book with |chapter=Monteverdi, Claudio |title=Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. |pages=§3: Venice |nopp=   .  |nopp= suppresses the pp.Fifelfoo (talk) 03:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because the medium is HTML does not mean that it is a cite web. Grove Music Online is a credible tertiary source.  Ie: A Book Equivalent. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the issue is here. The source is a website, and the use of the cite web template is entirely appropriate for these citations. There is no relevant information missing, so why are you requesting a change to "cite book" ? Brianboulton (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly fine to cite it as a website using cite web. As long as none of the information required to verify the information is missing (which it is not) and the source is indeed a website, we don't get into the minutiae of what citation format is used, as long as it's consisent, which this is. Citing it as a book would be weird, as it's not a book. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's perfectly fine to cite it, but url is overlaid with the title of the source and is supposed to identify exactly where one can find the cited source, and not just be the URL of the website overall. I modified the citations in question to mention the URL just once (the first time the website is mentioned) and to overlay the publisher, not the work. Eubulides (talk) 03:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Harnoncourt, Nikolaus. (1974)." at what time count MM:SS, or do you mean a liner / sleeve?
 * The booklet accompanying the recording. I will clarify this. Brianboulton (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a surprisingly good quote from Harnoncourt, who's normally a little stiff (linguistically, conceptually)—I suspect it benefited from the talent of a very good translater. I think it's fine. Tony   (talk)  15:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This citation is inconsistent in terms of your style "Trade News". Gramophone (London: Haymarket): p. 95. November 1954. as are all the others from Gramaphone, pick one style and stick to it for your periodicals and journals.
 * The only "inconsistency" is that the Trade News section does not give author's name. Otherwise the format is consistent, per the "cite journal" template. Brianboulton (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted this as a template error. Reported (and shin kicked) cite journal for this ugliness. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1c:
 * How is this reflective of the best research in Wikipedia if you're quoting quotes? (Savage, Love and Infamy: The paradox of Monteverdi's L'incoronazione di Poppea, p. 198, quoted in Ringer).  Go find the originals.
 * It is common practice for one scholar to quote another, in this case Ringer quoting Savage (and providing full sourcing details). Ringer is a top-quality source; there is no basis for questioning his scholarship or integrity. It is quite unnecessary that I should go to the library, obtain the Savage book, look up p. 198 etc., to confirm that Ringer was quoting accurately. Brianboulton (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Tis second-best to chain-quote, and some people won't allow it because there's no way of verifying the original—even good scholars make mistakes—and we'd like to know the type of publication it was. I think it's probably OK if used only once or twice in an article. Tony   (talk)  15:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why should we accept this tertiary source as a Highest Quality reliable source, "Arnold, Denis. "Claudio Monteverdi: Three decades in Venice". Britannica Online. Retrieved 31 October 2009." ? Fifelfoo (talk) 22:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy permits the use of reliable tertiary sources. In this case the writer is Denis Arnold, the foremost English-language writer on Monteverdi of his day. There is no issue of reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * Need to note in the references and sources that sources are not in English.
 * Just the one, I think, now fixed. Brianboulton (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. An engaging and thorough article about an important opera. Eubulides (talk) 03:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.