Wikipedia:Peer review/Giuseppe Verdi/archive1

Giuseppe Verdi
The article that was there before was an insult. I can say no less. It contained factual errors; it featured imaginary facts; and was written in a kind of English that may be in common use in some small Italian village situated well away from major cultural centers but is hardly suitable for writing articles on music. Arguably the greatest opera composer who ever lived, Verdi deserves better. With that in mind, I wrote a new entry from scratch and would be very happy to receive some comments. Impressionist October 6, 2005


 * Good job with the article! There are a few things that need work, though. First, the intro for the article should summarize the article. It should be approximately 2-3 paragraphs; just enough information that someone could get a decent understanding of Verdi and his life and work just from reading it (God help those who don't fully read the article!). 2)There are some major NPOV (No point of view) problems with the article. While I agree that Verdi's music is moving and passionate (singing "Va'Pensiero" onstage is one of the highlights of my personal performing career), passages such as "Widely recognized as one of the greatest opera composers ever" and
 * Rigoletto is, arguably, the greatest opera yet written. In it, Verdi's artistic generosity is at its highest. Uspeakably beautiful melodies are tossed right and left, passages of celestial beauty scattered like pearls and never repeated, numerous arias, duets, trios and a quartet follow one another in an unceasing celebration of musical genius; passions vibrate; comedy and tragedy merge seamlessly.
 * while beautifully written, do not correspond to the NPOV rule. Just stick to the facts and let the readers judge for themselves. Should you feel you need to make a NPOV statement make sure it is backed by cited evidence or are direct quotes. 3)The biography section should be broken up into periods of his life: "Early life," etc. 4)Certainly more--if not volumes--could be said about Verdi's style in the style section. 5)The number of sources could be expanded a great deal as well. This is an excellent new start to the article and you write beautifully! Ganymead 05:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, thank you. I have 1) expanded the intro 2) corrected some of the NPOV problems 3) divided the bio section into periods 4) expanded the style section. The sources I'm going to look into soon. Thank you again for the excellent suggestions, and please respond to my (expletive deleted) note on your talk page. Affectionately Yours, Impressionist


 * This is a great article in many ways. The Risorgimento section is excellent.  I'm a little concerned about the treatment of Otello and Falstaff—many critics consider these operas Verdi's most advanced and sophisticated work.  The article doesn't need to argue for that point of view but could at least be more balanced.  Chick Bowen 01:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well done—it's a good start for an important article. But there are problems.
 * Prose: Can you remove 'to date' in the first sentence? And it would be much nicer to kill the parentheses and i.e. in the second sentence. 'Oftentimes' could be pruned to 'often'. Insert 'opera' before 'repertoire', and 'after' should be 'since'. OK, the prose needs a thorough editing throughout.
 * The paragraphs are uneven in size. Some are too stubby.
 * The 'Great master' section starts with his relationship with a woman, whereas you've keyed us up for a musical expose here.
 * Too much hype and dodgy comparison (Rigoletto the greatest opera ever written).
 * Style: I'd rather not read that his orchestration was masterful without being told why. Just a few snippets supporting the assertion are required. How, for example, did he achieve beauty of colour and texture in his scoring without overshadowing the singers? (There were several techniques that he perfected.) Which instruments were likely to be treated in unison? Put the bit about the tenor C later in 'Style'. Harmony, melody are more important. And I want to know a few (not-too-technical) details about his wonderful sense of dramatic pacing. While we don't want to copy Groves and other encyclopedias, they might give you a few insights that might make the task easier. Tony 15:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Goodness. As if there weren’t enough conceited ladies and gentlemen in fiction publishing. I have to deal with them here as well. Fine.


 * There are even fewer good editors these days than there are good writers. Most of the editors I deal with (not publishers, luckily) are bureaucratic pseudo-nitpickers. They would be true nitpickers if only they knew what they were talking about. Their characteristic traits are poor usage, absurd grammar, astonishing gaps in what one would think was common knowledge in the literary world (or any other world, for that matter), and a comical degree of self-complacent hubris. Look at the other responses: folks are actually trying to help make the article better. What do you do? You just go ahead and try to demonstrate to a fellow human being that you have power over him. I would have known what you do for a living even if I hadn’t looked at your profile.


 * All right. To business (if, in this case, one could call it that).


 * Well done—it's a good start for an important article.


 * One should know one’s classics. That’s a statement a very stupid character makes in a fairly well-known novel.


 * Can you remove 'to date' in the first sentence?


 * If I did, the implication would be that a more important composer will never come along. Not only would that sound needlessly fatalistic; it would also introduce a rather strong point of view to that one sentence.


 * And it would be much nicer to kill the parentheses and i.e. in the second sentence.


 * It would not.


 *  'Oftentimes' could be pruned to 'often'.


 * Pruned is not a word a person who has any respect for a) language b) his fellow human beings would ever use in that context. That said, when I write oftentimes, I mean oftentimes, and not often. If you don’t know the difference, that is your loss, and not mine.


 *  Insert 'opera' before 'repertoire',


 * No need. The article is about an opera composer. It says so in the opening sentence.


 *  and 'after' should be 'since'.


 * It should not.


 *  OK, the prose needs a thorough editing throughout.


 * “The prose” cannot be edited. Manuscripts can be edited, as well as paragraphs, sentences, and spelling. Shakespeare can be edited. Some classics can, though shouldn’t be, edited. Here are some things that, like “the prose”, cannot be edited: sugar, water, intonation, sushi, the sky. Make a note.


 * The paragraphs are uneven in size. Some are too stubby.


 * We’re not discussing a novel here. One would not expect the author of an encyclopedia entry to be concerned with architectonics.


 * The 'Great master' section starts with his relationship with a woman, whereas you've keyed us up for a musical expose here.


 * The “Great Master” section describes a portion of Verdi’s life and career both of which would have been different had not this woman influenced him. Please refrain from saying things for the sake of saying things.


 * Too much hype and dodgy comparison (Rigoletto the greatest opera ever written).


 * I said, “arguably.” Do not distort, please. I have no idea what you mean by “dodgy comparison.” I’m under the impression you’re just fond of throwing in vaguely insulting phrases, figuring that some of them might hit the target.


 * Style: I'd rather not read that his orchestration was masterful without being told why.


 * I do explain why, in some detail, too.


 * Which instruments were likely to be treated in unison?


 * No instruments are ever “treated in unison.” As a matter of fact, nothing can be “treated in unison.” The phrase is absurd.


 * Put the bit about the tenor C later in 'Style'. Harmony, melody are more important.


 * Than what?


 * And I want to know a few (not-too-technical) details about his wonderful sense of dramatic pacing.


 * Oh, really. Details, but not too technical. You’re very picky, aren’t you.


 * Please stay away from the article. Seriously. Impressionist October 17, 2005