Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Bayreuth canon/archive1


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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 15:47, 13 February 2010.

Bayreuth canon

 * Nominator(s): Peter cohen (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I now believe that the article is as complete as is appropriate for this self-contined topic. I have just closed and archived a peer review Peer review/Bayreuth canon/archive1 carried out by an experienced reviewer and creator of featured content who has good knowledge of the subject of this article. He has not sought to discourage me from applying for featured list status.

Rather than being in essay form, the article consists mainly of a definition list and a table giving performance details of the ten members of the canon. I therefore think that featured list is the way to go.

This is a self-nomination, my first for featured list though I have contributed as second author of a featured article and took some part in resolving issues at FAC. I am also an occasional contributer at FAC and related pages.Peter cohen (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support: An important addition to the stock of Wagneriana.
 * No disambiguation links
 * All ext. links working
 * Image licences OK and alt text present. The alt text is somewhat overdetailed and could be trimmed.
 * In the table the information is slightly obscured by a preponderance of inline citations - every cell has at least one. A possible remedy is to group each line's citations in a references column - see List of works for the stage by Wagner for the general idea. This might make the table seem a little less cluttered.
 * Thanks, Brian. I've trimmed the alt text a little. As far as the refs are concerned, I started putting them in all the individual boxes after seeing other FLs laid out like that. All the links in the last two columns are to the Bayreuth stats page. I could maybe ref the column headers and clear the boxes. As I don't get all the information in each row from the same place, I am hesitant to have a ref box at the end of rows that then mention several sources without being clear which says what. Let's see what other people say.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have now folded the refs for the last two columns up into the headings.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support: Like Brian Bolton, I find this important and useful addition to the information on both Wagner's operas and the Bayreuth Festival. The information is clearly presented and complete and very well referenced. I'm not wild about the yellow fields and am not sure how useful they are (especially since yellow as a 'code' is serving two different functions - "introduced by RW" and "part of the Ring Cycle" with disambiguation coming from the † ‡ symbols. Perhaps use a different colour for one of the two functions or just use the symbols? But that's a very minor point. Voceditenore (talk) 11:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Vdt. I've now introduced some pink. Before Brian's peer-review I had a lot more colour-coding and did have to re-use some. I obviously don't need to now.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support  Etincelles   (talk)   16:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - A good, well sourced list-- Pianoplonkers (talk • contribs) 07:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Support Mm40 (talk) 12:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Support, now that the issues below have been sorted out. GuillaumeTell
 * I've added a heading "Components" to create an extra section which a) makes the lead shorter and b) moves the TOC up. Hope that's uncontroversial.
 * I'll be happy to do some copy-editing as suggested above and may be able to fit that in later today. I've been involved in copy-editing some other articles on their way to FA:  William Shakespeare, Her Majesty's Theatre, H.M.S. Pinafore, a few others, and am familiar with the subject and with WP:Wagner.


 * I'm now scrutinising the article and have immediately hit a few problems:
 * The word canon might be unfamiliar to some readers. WP and Wictionary definitions use the sense intended here only for literary works (Shakespeare et al) but not musical ones - indeed, the word "canon" in music is defined only as the musical form.  Perhaps the WP article, at least, might need to be changed?
 * Western canon links the Wikidictionary entry where the meaning is buried down the list. At the Wikipedia entry canon it is the third entry we are talking about. This search turnd up a few uses of "musical canon" in this sense. You could alter the article in that way. I'm not sure that decisions on the content of other articles are reason to hold up this FLC. Nor can I see it as particularly helpful to link either the wikipedia or wikktionary articles on canon when the relevant meaning is some way down the list in each case.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The first sentence refers to "music dramas or operas". However, "music drama" redirects to gesamtkunstwerk, which says that Wagner disapproved of the term.  Would it not be better to say something like "total works of art (gesamtkunstwerks)" and forget about music dramas?
 * But then, did Wagner mean this term to be used of all the works in the Bayreuth canon? Weren't the earliest three termed Romantische Opern?
 * I've opted to remove the reference altogether. I've looked at Millington's article in Grove which talks about Wagner trying out "Festspiel" and "Handlung" and asking readers of his article Über die Benennung ‘Musikdrama’ to come up with suggestions. SP I don't think we can say that Wagner was that happy with GKW either. Im sure I saw somewhere that he rechsristened the romantic operas as dramas.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not very happy with "Attendance at the festival is often considered in mystic terms as a pilgrimage by Wagnerians." What are mystic terms?  What is a Wagnerian?  How about "Many devotees of Wagner (known as Wagnerians) regard attendance at the festival (?Festival?) as akin to a pilgrimage"? - that is, if this formulation fits the reference!
 * I've reworded it somewhat and added an 1891 Mark Twain article as an additional reference.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've now been through the rest of the article - added a few commas, moved things around a bit, altered some of the phraseology, done some clarification, put in another heading, etc. I don't think that there's anything controversial there, but do contact me if I've messed anything up.  I haven't touched the tables!  --GuillaumeTell 18:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked things a bit more. The biggest issue may be that you've removed the mention of Wagner's nationality which I inserted per another editor's request above.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have any problem with your comments or revisions. I recast the opening sentence and the nationality then didn't really fit in easily.  Update - I've now put it back. --GuillaumeTell 22:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.