Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Les pêcheurs de perles/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 Ucucha 20:56, 22 December 2011.

Les pêcheurs de perles

 * Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

In 1863 the youthful Georges Bizet presented his opera Les pêcheurs de perles ("The Pearl Fishers") to a scornful parade of Parisian critics, who buried the work for 30 years. Nowadays, Les pêcheurs is widely recognised as a work of quality, if not from the top drawer then well placed in the second rank of the operatic canon. And its "big" tune, the "Pearl Fishers Duet", was top of the list in a 1980s Guardian newspaper poll of the public's "best tunes". This is a thoroughly reviewed article, which I hope is up to scratch...but you will let me know, I'm sure. Brianboulton (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander -  What a well-written article. Absolutely brilliant prose. A few minor comments, mostly just phrasing issues that struck me:


 * " …one of the best-known numbers .." Also in the section title "Musical numbers."  Numbers seems slangy to me.    Maybe "pieces"?   Perhaps "numbers" is more standard in the world of opera.
 * Yes, "numbers" is the standard term for referring to individual musical items in operas. Brianboulton (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "Since 1950 the work has been recorded on numerous occasions, in both the amended and original versions. …" - perhaps also mention " … often performed in repertory of major opera companies .."
 * This point is already made in the second paragraph: "and from the mid-20th century has entered the repertory of opera houses worldwide." Brianboulton (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * " ...he wrote or part-wrote…" "co-wrote" seems better


 * "… the libretto of Les pêcheurs de perles reflects little credit on either writer." - seems overly euphemistic: some readers may not grasp the point. Recommend plainer language: ".. is relatively poor quality" or "… in the lower ranks of librettos".


 * "…in the majority of the press notices.." - Notices to me is something that is  published before a performance.  Would "reviews" be better here?
 * I've made the change, though "notices" is often used in this context. Brianboulton (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "… had won admiration from his peers." - "… of his peers"?
 * Well, either "admiration from" or "the admiration of" is correct, but not "admiration of". Brianboulton (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * ".. was not performed again until 20 March 1886, …" - Why make the reader do a subtraction to get the import? More dramatic to say "… until 23 years later in 1886 .."
 * I have made a slight change, but to give the date of the La Scala performance and "23 years" seems excessive (I don't think many readers will be doing subtractions). Brianboulton (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Section "Roles": table of roles:  can the "Ref" column be eliminated and the footnotes just put in the "Premiere cast" column?  As is already done with the conductor?  Surely the footnotes are supplying the initial cast, not the voice type?
 * Is it true that it did not become popular (the 1880s revivals) until after Bizet died?  If so, it may be worth pointing out (in the Early Revival section) that he did not live to see it widely performed.

End of Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "The duet's theme has become the opera's principal musical signature, and is repeated in the work whenever the issue of the men's friendship arises, though in Dean's view the tune is not worthy of the weight it carries." - Good information, but the word and seems to improperly connect two separate points:  the concept of a signature piece is a matter of perception, established by audiences and commentators;  the repetition as a motif is something the composer did.  Separate the two notions?
 * Thank you for the review and for your helpful comments. Where I have not commented I have incorporated your suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Support – I was one of the peer reviewers of this article, and my few queries and quibbles were all dealt with at that stage. The article is well balanced, highly readable, well illustrated and impressively sourced and referenced. This is top flight and a credit to its nominator and to Wikipedia. Tim riley (talk) 08:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for support and kind words - and for help at the review stage. Brianboulton (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support I had my say at the peer review. The only significant thing I found on re-reading was that I would delete from the lede "in the English-speaking world" in favour of something like "often called".  I think it is understood they do not call it that in Budapest although no doubt there is a similar expression in Hungarian.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A fair point (re. "English-speaking world) and I have deleted as you suggest. Thanks, too, for support and review help. Brianboulton (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Nitpick: shouldn't the wikilink for Au fond du temple saint be removed as it's only a REDIRECT to the opera? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point, now fixed. Brianboulton (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Sources review but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
 * FN 23: is "2" the page number? If so, compare formatting to FN 22; if not, need page number
 * FN 53: publisher? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the checks. I have fixed as necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I see that, although Au fond du temple saint is a redirect, Au Fond du Temple Saint isn't. It contains the lyrics and a translation (taken from where?), and I've added it to Category:opera excerpts. If it's to be retained and linked from this article, the over-capitalisation needs to be fixed, the blank lines in the text need to be suppressed and French/English words ought to be alongside each other rather than one on top of the other. --GuillaumeTell 17:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for drawing attention to this. Quite aside from the errant capitals, the Au Fond du Temple Saint page gives no indication of who sings what, and the translation has no reliable source. It doesn't look a particularly well-prepared page, and I am unsure that linking to it is of any benefit to this article—which incidentally has an external link to the French libretto that is the source of the song article. Brianboulton (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment. Very nice article, deserves the proposed promotion. I see the images don't have alts - is it not desirable to add them? though it doesn't seem to be a requirement. Would it be overloading the background to mention that at the time of writing Bizet was a student of Halévy ? (B went on to marry Halévy's daughter, and to complete his unfinished Noé). (Just part of my lone campaign to raise awareness of Halévy with the 150th anniversary of his death coming up next year :-}}--Smerus (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words. Prsonally I am unconvinced of the value of alt text, though I accept that there are other views. I don't normally include alt text, though will do so in response to a specific request, and have added it here. As to the Halévy stuff, that is of course covered in the Bizet article. The information is not really relevant to this opera. Brianboulton (talk) 11:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The one blind Wikipedia user that I've actually talked to in person stated that one of his pet peeves was our excessive use of alt text in featured articles, especially alt text that was redundant to the caption. I would avoid paragraph-long descriptions for the images (like the one in the Music section, for example) and keep the alt text concise. If the caption is sufficiently descriptive, you can even put "painting" or "photograph" as the alt text. Basically, we just need to make sure that any important information conveyed in the images is accessible to blind folks, but we don't want to bore them to death with minute descriptions. Kaldari (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Support. I was one of the peer reviewers, and all of my concerns have been addressed. Finetooth (talk) 04:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help and support. Brianboulton (talk) 11:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Image review: Images are verified to be in the public domain and stored on the proper servers, or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 07:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments : Having reviewed Georges Bizet previously, I am treating this article as a standalone article and on reading through.
 * Background
 * "... but the failure of his 1858 Te Deum helped convince him that his future lay primarily as a composer for the musical theatre."
 * The failure of Te Deum should be elaborated a bit here. Read on its own without knowledge of Bizet's history, one would be left puzzling why the failure of a piece of music (by assumption of seeing the italics as a sign of a musical work) would convince its composer to stick with the musical industry.  As a minimum, it should be stated that Te Deum is a religious musical work (and its failure would point Bizet to look to another sector of the music industry for success).
 * Writing and compositional history
 * "A recent critic, ..."
 * This can be a dated statement if more critics start to look and publish their thoughts of the opera in years to come.
 * Premiere and initial run
 * "... castigated ... Bizet's audacity in appearing on stage."
 * It seems strange on first reading that he would be castigated on this, considering that the audience called for him to go up. Is it against protocol for any of the production member to appear on stage, or something else?  Readers unfamiliar with opera traditions would be puzzled to read this.  Perhaps Bertrand's remarks should be moved more to the front (switch around with the "One writer surmised that ...") to make it immediate why this sort of thing was not cricket at the time?
 * Just the above for the moment. Jappalang (talk) 07:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these comments. I have dealt with the Te Deum and the "recent critic" issues. On your third point, I have tried rearranging the prose as you suggest but I can't make it work. I have settled for a slighter reorganisation, and have changed "audacity" to "lack of modesty"; with other minor changes in phrasing, I think this works. I look forward to any further comments you may have. Brianboulton (talk) 15:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The changes work for me, Brian. I am happy to support this well-written article about a resurgent opera.  I think it gives me a pretty good idea of its history and current circumstance.  Jappalang (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the support, and most particularly for your continued help over image questions, which does much to remove the sting from this sometimes problematic area of article preparation. Brianboulton (talk) 09:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment I'd be interested to see the list of instruments that were in the original orchestration (or reffered to in the main body), as Bizet did not always stick to the conventional orchestra; most notably in L'Arlésienne (Bizet), with the use of the saxophone.  Kitchen Roll   (Exchange words)  18:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have not been able to ascertain this information from the sources I have used. If you have a source that provides it I will be glad to include it if it indicates anything notable or unconventional. Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Support Comment from Voceditenore The caption for File:Pearl-Fishers-Paris-1863.jpg in the Music section which states "An illustration taken from the 1863 premiere", needs to be changed. This was an extrapolation from the erroneous 1863 date given by Gallica. The same illustration appears in Teatro La Fenice's programma di sala (programme book) for their 2004 production of the opera (See, p. 253) with a caption stating that Bonamore's engraving was published in Teatro Illustrato April 1886, on the occasion of the Italian premiere at La Scala (20 March 1886) and was based on the orignal set design by Giovanni Zuccarelli (1846-1897) for the La Scala production. Note that both Bonamore and Zuccarelli would have been teenagers at the time of the Paris world premiere. Voceditenore (talk) 12:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed now, probably as I was writing the above. I'm happy to support this article for FA—a very well written and comprehensive treatment of the subject, well illustrated. Voceditenore (talk) 14:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


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