Wikipedia:Featured article review/Sylvia (ballet)/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Dana boomer 23:26, 19 January 2012.

Review commentary

 * Notified: Melongrower, Dance, Classical music

Article was promoted in 2005. A FAR notice was given December 2010 and I made a second one in November 2011. There were promises of future work but nothing has been done so far.
 * 1a Article is full of praiseworthy comments, weasel wording, editorializing and bullet lists that should be in prose. Here are some examples:
 * Sylvia, ou la nymphe de Diane, as it was originally titled, was the first ballet to be shown at the newly constructed Opera Garnier and it did so with extravagance. This approach proved at times excessive. The lavish scenery of Jules Chéret was poorly lit, detracting from the quality of the production. The costumes designed by Lacoste were well appreciated, however. In the end it was Delibes' score which saved the production. Without such highly esteemed music, the ballet would have soon drifted into obscurity[citation needed]
 * Sylvia is generally considered a classical ballet.[by whom?] It features a nondescript mythical setting and a late nineteenth-century score, both of which give it an old-fashioned feel. In many ways, however, it was quite revolutionary for its time. The score was and still is recognized for its greatness. Delibes' work is certainly the best appreciated aspect of the ballet for its innovation, creativity, and maturity. Frederick Ashton's choreography complements the music very well in this respect, staying true to the spirit of the original production while incorporating modern techniques and adding his own unique touch.[editorializing][citation needed]


 * 1c There are citation needed tags which I placed by request. Article information seems to stop in 2005; there is an update needed tag. There are dead links to sources and sources that need page numbers.
 * 1d The praiseworthy prose and the lack of opposite opinion fails neutrality. Isn't there some reviewer at some time that didn't like Sylvia?
 * These are the three major issues with the article; the rest is minor and not worth a mention at this point. Brad (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Although I continue to be troubled by FARs brought with vague and incomplete rationales (we can't automatically assume something fails neutrality without having done a literature search, so that rationale isn't entirely fair and FARs shouldn't be brought without good reason), this article has been on my needs-a-FAR radar for years. I also doubt that it's comprehensive (a search needs to be done by someone with access to a university library), but more concretely, here's just one example of the troubling prose:
 * Rehearsals for Sylvia begin on August 15, 1875, with only the first third of the music intact. Throughout the rehearsal period the score was under constant revision by Delibes, often with the "aid" of Mérante and Rita Sangalli who would each dance a lead rôle. This development of the score was a grueling process of many revisions and restarts.
 * "First third intact"? what the heck does that mean?  First third written?
 * Throughout ... under constant ... redundant puffery, and really, isn't that typical?
 * Grueling process with revisions and restarts ... how is that different from the development of most ballets?
 * It reads like high school level prose. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

A cursory read confirms the rationale of User:SandyGeorgia and show without equivocation that this article, if at one time properly an FA, has fallen into disrepair so as to no longer meet the criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by My76Strat (talk • contribs)

FARC commentary

 * Featured article criteria brought up in the review section include referencing, prose and comprehensiveness. Dana boomer (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delist Nothing has been done towards improvement since nomination. Brad (talk) 05:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delist the article needs updates now that it is 6–7 years out of date. Combined with the prose concerns, and I can't support retention.  Imzadi 1979  →   18:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


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