Wikipedia:Peer review/Jacques Offenbach/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jacques Offenbach

Toolbox
This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've been working on this article with a view to getting it up to FAC level. All contributions gratefully received, on prose (as always) and on the balance between life and works, and in re the latter, the balance (?) between the operettas and everything else. And anything else, really. Tim riley (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Offenbach's genre designations omitted from the article

See here for a specific problem with this article. --Kleinzach 00:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Offenbach libretti, etc (comments by ssilvers)

I think you have fleshed out the article admirably and much improved it in every way, giving a much clearer picture of this composer. Here are a few thoughts, but the answer to them might be that there is not much more of interest to say:

  • I'd like to see more discussion about the satiric targets of Offenbach's most successful pieces. Also little more plot description about the most famous situations and plot points of the most famous pieces.
    • I'm a bit chary of going very far in this direction: all the famous operettas, and many of the less famous ones, have their own articles, and the present article is already nudging 10,000 words. Tim riley (talk) 08:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also like to see more about how the plots came about. The article says: "The first ideas for plots usually came from Offenbach, with his librettists working on lines agreed with him." But I (and I think other readers) would like to know more about how the jokes, satire and funny situations came about - Did Offenbach contribute to this, or did he leave it mostly to his librettists? Did he say, "let's have a song here where the lovers are discovered by the wife"? Can we get more explanation about how he worked with the librettists to flesh out the lyrics and dialogue? Did he often ask for re-writes? Reject songs and write new ones in their place? Did he ever do any of the writing himself?
    • As far as I can tell from the sources I drew on, Offenbach generally set things going and left it to his librettists to produce a text for him to set. I don't remember any instances of his asking for changes. I speculate that not being a native French-speaker he left it to the experts, but I have no evidence from the sources to substantiate that supposition. Tim riley (talk) 08:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article hardly mentions any famous arias, songs, overtures, etc. Were there any other particularly famous ones that should be mentioned?
    • Interesting.I should guess that by contrast with Johann Strauss and Arthur Sullivan, Offenbach is generally known for only two or three numbers – the galop ("can-can") from Orphée aux enfers, the Barcarolle from The Tales of Hoffmann, and (in Anglophone lands, at least) the Gendarmes' duet from Geneviève de Brabant. During first runs, other numbers became huge hits in Paris (and elsewhere) and modern-day Offenbach connoisseurs would undoubtedly add a dozen or more numbers to the list. Tim riley (talk)
      • Later: this topic has been moved towards the bottom of this page in the hope that later contributors will spot it and add to it. Tim riley (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were there any other pieces that are not mentioned but that Offenbach was particularly fond of, even if they did not become popular? Any pieces that were quite popular but don't yet have WP articles? (How about Madame Papillon?)
    • As to the first point, not as far as I have read. Not sure about the second point. One for the to-do list later, I think. Tim riley (talk) 08:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Offenbach wrote incidental music to quite a few plays. This is mentioned only once in passing. Were none of them of any consequence? Should any of his non-operatic pieces be featured more? Are none admired?
    • As far as I can tell none off Offenbach's incidental music for plays has survived in the repertoire. His most notable, perhaps, was his score for Sardou's La haine, in that this production brought him to bankruptcy. Tim riley (talk) 08:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did any of his children or their children do anything of note?
    • His son was an expert in Offenbach's work, and would, had he lived, probably have played an important part in perpetuating an Offenbach performing tradition, but alas he barely outlived his father. The four daughters did nothing of historical note. Tim riley (talk) 08:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention one mistress and also say that he had "some extramarital dalliance" - do you mean more than one affair?
    • That sentence was very carefully drawn. Offenbach was a discreet man; his relationship with Zulma is beyond doubt, but he had good friendships with other singers: what we do not know is whether any of them were more than just friendships. Without a reliable source or two I have not felt justified in even alluding to this. Tim riley (talk) 08:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I find that Yon mentions other ladyfriends, and I have amended accordingly. Tim riley (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't mention his wife's birth or death dates.

I hope this is helpful! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All grist to the mill. Many thanks for your comments and for your very thorough copy-editing. Tim riley (talk) 08:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nit-picking comments on the lead/lede
  • General: rather too many uses of "best known" or "best-known"
  • 1st para: Romantic era? Does anything in Romantic music apply to Offenbach (who isn't mentioned in that article)?
    • I inherited this from the existing article, but am very happy to lose it. Now done. Tim riley (talk) 08:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2nd para: "theatre license" should be "theatre licence" (or "theater license" if we're using U.S. English!)
    • I've removed the sentence; this detail is more appropriate to the main text. Tim riley (talk) 08:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3rd and 4th paras: "popular" over-used
    • Yes. Pruned.
  • 4th para: "Second French Empire ruled by Napoleon III" sounds a bit odd to me - 2nd F E of N III sounds better. "Military" to me is an adjective, not a noun - Army? Or did Offenbach satirise the Navy too? Franco-Prussian War finished in 1871, not 1870. "Out of favour for" sounds odd - "out of favour because"? Last 4 lines: successful .... successes .... successfully ... I'd use "popular" for Vienna and London, but see above.
    • "ruled by" - I originally wrote "of", but altered it. I can't now think why and have altered it back. Blitzed refs to military - again, better relegated to the main text. Have added ref to "conclusive battle" of the war, as Napoleon abdicated after Sedan. Tim riley (talk) 08:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments later. --GuillaumeTell 16:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Later, a few other odds and ends
  • Cello virtuoso section: "seven operatic arias of his own composition". An operatic aria is an aria from an opera. What exactly were these?
    • I'm afraid I cannot discover the answer. I suspect there isn't one, and that these were isolated arias written for operas yet to be completed, but the sources don't say. They do, however, call them "operatic", possibly to emphasise that they were not the drawing room ballads that he had successfully dabbled in previously. Tim riley (talk) 10:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Salle Choiseul: "he researched in Vienna to find the score" is rather awkwardly phrased; also, the word "furore" at the end of the section indicates (to me) a fuss or controversy rather than what I think is intended, something like "great enthusiasm".
    • First point: rephrased. Second, point: the OED's primary definition of "furore" is "Enthusiastic popular admiration; a 'rage', 'craze'," and I use it in that sense. Tim riley (talk) 10:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Orphée aux enfers: "Despite many great successes during the rest of Offenbach's career, Orphée aux enfers remained his most popular" - should that be "popular operetta"?
  • Later 1860s: "with Schneider feuding with the seconda donna Léa Silly" - the two "with"s jar
  • War and aftermath: As mentioned above, the Franco-Prussian war ended in 1871 not 1870; "the Gilmore's Garden" should be just "Gilmore's Garden".
    • Expanded to mention Sedan. Garden amended. Tim riley (talk) 10:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later years: unnecessary "the" before Montmartre Cemetery
    • Not sure about this. I'll ask around for views. Tim riley (talk) 10:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Later: no consensus! (Quelle surprise!). Usage within WP is, at a quick glance, pretty evenly split between using the definite article and omitting it. It feels more natural to me with the article, and I'll leave it be unless there's a consensus to the contrary. Tim riley (talk) 12:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Works: the top of this section looks rather odd. I'd leave out "Main article: List of compositions by Jacques Offenbach" at this point and start with Operettas. Then the list of compositions pointer can be slotted in under Other works.
    • It does indeed look a bit odd. I'll experiment with other layouts such as you suggest. Tim riley (talk)
      • Later:I have played (offline) with other layouts, but I can't make it work better. Very happy for anyone else to have a shot, of course. Tim riley (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've been bold and moved the list of compositions as per my suggestion above. I think it works better than the previous arrangement, but others may disagree. --GuillaumeTell 17:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Looks good to me. I tried all sorts of permutations offline, and got nowhere. This looks to me as good as we'll get in an imperfect world. Tim riley (talk) 17:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • The only oddity is the repetition of the link to the list of operettas in the Other Works/Main article: List of compositions by JO. I suppose the Main article link could be changed to "Main article: List of non-operetta compositions by JO" and the operettas link within the main article could be removed, but, while that would be better logically, it doesn't read very well. Just worrying a bit about possible comments at FAC, but maybe we can wait and see (unless someone proposes a perfect solution before the article gets there). --GuillaumeTell 18:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Offenbach also sometimes used the term opéra-comique regardless of the work's length" - what has length got to do with it? Opéra comique is opera with spoken dialogue. The following para is essentially a repeat of stuff already dealt with. It could be omitted or drastically reduced.
    • Not my drafting. If you would have time and inclination to redraw it, I should be most grateful. Tim riley (talk) 10:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Musical structure: "as well as to parody Wagner" is inelegant.
  • Orchestration: why no wikilink for percussion? "Surviving scores show his instrumentation for additional wind and brass" might be better as "Surviving scores show additional wind and brass". Wind machine - surely not a musical instrument or part of the orchestra?
    • Will revisit the links. The wind machine is indeed an orchestral instrument. Vaughan Williams uses it in one of his symphonies, and I believe you'll also run across it in The Barber of Seville, La Fanciulla del West, and Strauss's Don Quixote.
  • Parody: Berlioz' should be Berlioz's.
    • I think you're probably right. I'll dig about and revisit this.
  • Note 19: "toured in England the" should be "toured England in the"
    • I've removed this reference to the tour, as it is not really relevant to the question of Offenbach's influence on Sullivan. Tim riley (talk) 10:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's it - lots of good stuff there. --GuillaumeTell 21:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. I am greatly obliged, and if you could find time and disposition to reword the "Offenbach also sometimes used the term opéra-comique..." section I should be even more in your debt. Tim riley (talk) 10:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt's comments
An excellent effort, very detailed indeed.
Lede
  • " but he found academic study" Strike "he".
  • " and his theatre license" It would be clearer if you said "and by his theatre license"
    • I've pruned this, as being too detailed for the lead; it is dealt with in the main text. Tim riley (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His chief interest, however, was in comic and satiric musical theatre." I don't see having an interest in the musical theatre as inconsistent with being a cellist, why "however" then. I understand you are trying to say that he was seeking to move into a new area, but this doesn't quite do it. You need to make it clearer that he was composing, and what he was composing.
  • "more than three (and later four) singers," strike "and".
    • Another bit I've pruned from the lead and confined to the main text. Tim riley (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • " to challenge" better, "to successfully challenge".
  • "for melody, made them" I think you can lose the comma, not certain.
    • We need the second comma to close the subordinate clause. Tim riley (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "out of favour in Paris". I would end the sentence here and discard the remainder. You can explain why in the body.
    • I've shortened, though not as much as you suggest. I think this edited version reads all right. Tim riley (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • " In his last years he was unable to complete The Tales of Hoffmann" I would say "He was unable to complete The Tales of Hoffmann before his 1880 death?
    • But some clever-clogs pedant would be sure to ask if this implies that he was able to complete it afterwards. Tim riley (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Hoffmann in English and most other titles in the original language?
    • Aargh! This is a minefield. Strictly, I think, I am transgressing by calling Orphée aux enfers by its French title when the WP article is called "Orpheus in the Underworld", but I am gambling that only a very flint-hearted WP zealot would have me write, "Orpheus in the Underworld (1858), La belle Hélène (1864), La vie parisienne (1866), La Grande-Duchesse de Gérolstein (1867) and La Périchole (1868)" – the single Anglicised title sticks out like a sore thumb. As Hoffmann is a thing unto itself in this article, and not generaly mentioned cheek by jowl with the operettas, I have thought it my duty to refer to it by the title used in the Wikipedia article. I should very much prefer to give it its French title, and the smallest encouragement in that direction will be seized upon. Tim riley (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia:WPO#Operas:_original_vs_English_translation was an attempt by WikiProject Opera to use WP:ENGLISH without taking it to extremes. --GuillaumeTell 18:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, but if I call it "Les contes d'Hoffmann", will I face a firing squad of the Pique Dame, Astrafiammante, Die Königin von Saba and other lethal operatic sovereignesses (the task of filling up the blanks I'd rather leave to you...)? Please encourage me to go continental! Tim riley (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • A flint-hearted WP zealot here: I'll agree with Orphée, but I cannot, in good conscience, recommend contes - Everyone calls it Tales, even when sung in the lingua Franca (so to speak).  :-) -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Early years
  • "Jacob or Jakob Offenbach" Why is it bolded? And a little ways on, is it usual to use German letters? What does the MOS say?
    • Name in bold: I believe this is the usual practice when mentioning birth names of people better known by other names, as in Edward German, Irving Berlin. Not that I can find anything in the MoS about it. The MoS is equally silent on the use of the esszet, as far as I can discover. Having peppered the article with French acutes and graves it seemed churlish to deny the Germans one diacritical.
  • It might be a good idea to mention what the platz was called then.
    • It wasn't there then. The whole area was redeveloped circa 1870. Tim riley (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "earned a living in various towns " Can we instead say he led an itinerant existence or something similar?
    • Much neater. Done.
  • "By now appointed permanent cantor" strike "appointed".
    • Yes. Done.
  • What was wrong with Offenbach's nationality to bar his admission in Paris? BTW, you haven't mentioned his nationality.
    • The conservatory was supposed to be for French students only. (Yon (2000) rather discounts the significance of this supposed rule). As there was a lower age limit (not sure from the sources how low) Offenbach was in theory ineligible on two counts. As, indeed, had Liszt been. I mention earlier that Offenbach was from Prussia. Tim riley (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but he failed to do so" strike "he".
Cello
  • " in the cellos of the Opéra-Comique." This seems a bit affected, unless it is a common phrase, I would simply say "as a cellist at (of?) the Opera-Comique.
    • Pretty common usage, but your alternative is fine too. Done. Tim riley (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "played alternate notes of the printed score," This doesn't make sense to me, but I am not musically educated.
    • I take this to mean that if the cello part in the score required all the cellists to play say, the notes A, C, G, E, Offenbach's partner in crime would have played the A and the G, and Offenbach would have played the C and the E. A frightfully difficult extempore technical feat to do this bar after bar, I'd say, as well as thoroughly reprehensible. Tim riley (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • intermittent" I would simplify to "sometimes caused him difficulty in later life.
    • Yes. Done.
  • "professed religions" strike "professed" unless there's a really good reason for it.
    • I put this in because Offenbach was clearly not a religious man, and as far as I can tell from the sources Hérminie was pretty secular too. The point is that this was no big deal to Offenbach. As Harding points out, Offenbach's old dad might have had different views. Tim riley (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "bride was 17". I think you do have to put in a "years old".
    • I'm surprised, but have no objection. Done. Tim riley (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "some extramarital dalliance" On balance, I think I would say "dalliances" instead.
    • I have fretted over this. Nowhere have I seen any unequivocal statement that Offenbach dallied with anyone but Zulma Bouffar. I cannot in conscience imply that he was a serial philanderer, and I think "dalliance" accords with the known facts without implying that Zulma was definitely his only wild oat. Tim riley (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Later: I neglected to check one of the French sources. Yon names names. I'll amend my wording accordingly. Tim riley (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The comtesse de Vaux's 200 guests " Something troubles me about this way of phrasing things. It seems almost like a review. I would keep it with Offenbach's perspecive, making him or his works the subject of the sentence.
    • Very good point. Peer review is invaluable for such perspectives from a fresh eye. Done. Tim riley (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bouffes-Parisien
  • " and managed to have" I would say "and was successful in having". There's a note of exasperation in "managed".
  • " after numerous attempts to persuade the directors to give him a chance." Delete in its entirely. We got all that already!
  • "he had already made" I would cut this as well.
    • This isn't elegant, but it is needed for strict accuracy. He had already planned this before approaching Hervé, and though this seems the best place to raise it, I need to make it clear that it wasn't only after his success with Hervé that he planned to open his own show. Tim riley (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • " between May and November." While this is useful information, it's awkwardly attached to the sentence.
  • I would cut the long sentence about the Offenbach-Ludovic collaboration into two sentences at the semicolon.
  • "The libretto for the most popular piece" This really needs to be part of the previous paragraph, I don't have any great solutions here and suspect you struggled with it.
All for now, more most likely tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent stuff – thank you so much. I look forward to round two at your leisure. Tim riley (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Salle
  • "many other composers." Strike word "other" as many minus Offenbach is still many.
  • "he researched in Vienna " Is this a verb? perhaps "conducted research"
    • I thought I'd already changed that! Now done. – Tim riley (talk) 09:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "popular with the public," I see no great need for the comma.
  • "social standing" Mildly dubious a theatre can have one of these.
    • The source says "acquired a cachet of respectability…" but I think my version is clearer. – Tim riley (talk) 09:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "shortly afterwards" After what?
  • "an open competition " What were entrants asked to do?
    • There was an eliminating round, but as far as I recall the sources don't give details.
  • " Le docteur miracle" Did this have any connection with the character of same name in Hoffmann? If so, a note someplace might be nice.
    • Happily not – not many laughs there! (or not intentional ones, at any rate.) This Dr. Miracle is based on Sheridan's play St. Patrick's Day, Or, The Scheming Lieutenant, a farce first given at Covent Garden in 1775.
  • "evidently hated" hmmm, maybe "apparently"? Or nothing?
Orphee
  • " licensing restrictions on the permitted number of performers" You probably don't need the word "permitted".
  • "write more" perhaps "present more". He could write whatever he wanted, it's getting it on the boards that was the trick. And it not only applies to him, but the many other composers.
1860s
  • The two mentions of the emperor close to each other may have people wonder if there was a connection there.
  • "a second failure in Berlin." Those with a short attention span may appreciate a mention of when the first failure was.
  • "lui le . . .." Interesting punctuation!
    • It was a case of "fill in here" – the dots represent the date, which would be changed every day during the run. – Tim riley (talk) 09:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did Offenbach resign?
    • Good question. The sources don't really say. One gets the impression that he found management a bit of a chore, but I can't find a solid citation to that effect. – Tim riley (talk) 09:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Later 1860s
  • Should the passage in French be italicized?
  • "success in early 1866" Eliminate one of the two "successes" in this sentence.
  • "best-known operettas." I would go with better-known operettas.
    • I'll ponder this – not altogether sure. – Tim riley (talk) 09:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
War
  • "meretricious" I think you need to change this note at a bank. It's just too expensive.
    • It's the word used in the source, and I can't think of any synonym that will quite do. "Flashy" is too slangy; "worthless" is a bit too strong; "superficial" not quite strong enough. Any other candidates will be gratefully considered. – Tim riley (talk) 09:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Meanwhile, when life in Paris returned to normal, Offenbach ended his voluntary exile at the end of 1871." "By the end of 1871, life in Paris had returned to normal and Offenbach ended his voluntary exile."
  • " He found that there was no public appetite for new works by him ..." Reads rather oddly. Perhaps "Of the works Offenbach composed in the years after his return, only x and y were successful" Something like that.
  • "An expensive ... rephrase sentence to reduce use of commas"
  • " repay his debts." I would say "pay his debts".
  • " with net profits " Strike "net".
I'll conclude tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Opérette" perhaps the explanation that it is the same as the English operetta should come at first mention of the French term.
  • Tricky. There's only one earlier mention and unless I put it in as a footnote there (and I can think of one editor who will have a fit if I do) it would impede the chronological narrative more than I should like. – Tim riley (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
over 20 more " which?
"As throughout his composing career" Perhaps, "As he usually did,"
  • I'll think about this. Not quite sure. – Tim riley (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"of the change in public taste, with a simpler, more romantic style now preferred. " Perhaps "of a change in public taste: a simpler, more romantic was now preferred."
"the most successful was La fille du tambour-major (1879), rated by the musician and writer Antonio de Almeida as the finest of the works from the 1870s.[123]" This surely can be shortened and given a jazzier ending.
  • Rejigged. Not exactly jazzy even now, but a bit crisper. – Tim riley (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Leitmotif" Lower case, surely.
  • So it is! I am truly surprised – evidently the word is now regarded as Anglicised. – Tim riley (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Some of them saw the joke" I gather they all did, the question was whether they appreciated the joke.
"Meyerbeer tactfully avoided Offenbach's opening nights" Why? He'd be satirized just as much on the second night wouldn't he? If he was. Suggest expanded explanation.
  • I think he didn't want to steal Offenbach's thunder at premieres, but I've trimmed to avoid the question. – Tim riley (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"writing some unflattering verses about Offenbach." In his works? If just in letters, I would say "words" rather than "verses".
  • A bit of both. He intended that his verses should be set to music, but was dissuaded by one of his acolytes. – Tim riley (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"In his one act pieces, " Can you not find a place for this sentence in the next paragraph.
"His second attempt," This sentence is breathtaking in scope, suggest splitting in two.
  • Not guilty! A later addition by another hand, now amended as suggested. – Tim riley (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"has written," wrote,
Surely you can give the Hoffmann fans a bit more?
  • Quite difficult in a Life and Works article, when it was brought out (i) posthumously and (ii) in mangled form – and remains a conjectural text. Better for people to go to the main article if they're interested, I think.
"composed several individual waltzes and polkas, and suites of dances,[153] including a waltz, Abendblätter ("Evening Papers") composed for Vienna with Johann Strauss's Morgenblätter ("Morning Papers") as a companion piece." This should be divided into at least two sentences.
Can anything be said as to the longevity of his non-operatic songs?
  • I haven't run across any of them, and I think they are pretty much as defunct as most drawing room ballads of the 19th century, but I am quite prepared to be told I'm wrong. Either way, I have nothing from the sources to justify any comment. – Tim riley (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"the familiar scores " Familiar to whom? I'd find another word here.
  • Legacy and reputation
You have a missing start quote for the Duke of Plaza-Toro, I'd fill it in, but I'm not sure where you intended the quote to begin (I am quite familiar with the song, thanks).
  • The quote opens at "in both works…" on the line above. Too long, do you think? – Tim riley (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"ephemeral" too expensive a word, how about "soon would pass"?
"The Times obituary contained errors of fact. It stated that Offenbach completed his studies at the Paris Conservatoire, " delete, sidetrack.
I think you need to explain in text why The Times so totally reversed itself.

That's all, a noble effort on your part Tim, looking forward to seeing it near the Trickster at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, that's a thorough review – thank you so much! The article is decidedly better now, and I'm most grateful. Tim riley (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from User:Jezhotwells.

  • Prose looks good, I see that obvious problems have been sorted.
  • Ref #182 needs publisher details
    • Judy was a weekly newspaper, so I don't think publisher details are usual. Tim riley (talk) 17:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images check out
  • Have you thought about sound samples from one or two famous works?
    • No, and I jolly well ought to have done: will explore forthwith. Tim riley (talk) 17:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I left a message at WP:Opera to see if anyone has or can make a PD sound file, but feel free to explore other options. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you, Ss – that's a step in the right direction, and I'm blest if I can think of any other. Anyone?
  • Is it worth having a section on critical analysis of his works?
That's all for now. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Jez! Tim riley (talk) 17:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Famous arias

Ssilvers said, up near the top, "The article hardly mentions any famous arias, songs, overtures, etc. Were there any other particularly famous ones that should be mentioned?" I originally made some suggestions under the above but fear that they may not have been noticed, so I've moved them down here to give them more prominence. Comments and additions welcome.

  • The Tales of Hoffmann: "Les oiseaux dans la charmille" (aka the Doll Song), perhaps "Scintille, diamant", but that was inserted after Offenbach's death; La belle Hélène: "Au mont Ida"; La Grande Duchesse de Gerolstein: "Voici le sabre de mon père" (used by Gilbert in The Merry Zingara) as well as "Ah! Que j'aime les militaires"; La Périchole: any or all of "O mon cher amant, je te jure", "Ah! Quelle dîner", "Tu n'es pas beau" ("Offenbach's last major song for Hortense Schneider" - Lamb in Opera Grove). I'm sure there are others. --GuillaumeTell 10:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sacheverell Sitwell wrote that the 'letter song' in La vie parisienne has "the purity, the clean jet of inspiration of Mozart". (Quoted in Gammond p,136). Tim riley (talk) 11:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure that I've ever heard a note of La vie parisienne, but Lamb's article in Grove Opera makes no mention of a letter song. Might Sitwell have been referring instead to the letter song 'O mon cher amant, je te jure' in La Périchole, mentioned above? (Now it'll be going through my head for the rest of the day...) --GuillaumeTell 15:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The doll song has been recorded often by important sopranos, so you could name it and say that it has been recorded by Sutherland, Dessay, etc. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I rather think Guillaume must be right about the letter song; perhaps Gammond erred when quoting Sitwell. Best avoid that one perhaps. Meanwhile from the Musical Times piece by Lubbock quoted in another context in our article: "Offenbach's music is as individually characteristic as that of Delius, Grieg or Puccini – together with range and variety. He could write straightforward 'singing' numbers like Paris's song in La Belle Hélène, 'Au mont Ida trois déesses'; comic songs like General Boum's 'Piff Paff Pouf' and the ridiculous ensemble at the servants' ball in La Vie Parisienne, 'Votre habit a craque dans le dos'. He was a specialist at writing music that had a rapturous, hysterical quality. The famous can-can from Orphée aux Enfers has it, and so has the finale of the servants' party I mentioned, which ends with the delirious song 'Tout tourne, tout danse'. Then, as a contrast, he could compose songs of a simplicity, grace and beauty like the Letter Song from La Périchole, ' Chanson de Fortunio', and the Grand Duchess's tender love song to Fritz: 'Dites-lui qu'on l'a remarqué distingué'." Tim riley (talk) 17:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nosing around in Google Books, I see that Sitwell produced a book called La Vie Parisienne. It looks as if it's about Offenbach in general rather than the operetta of that name (not that Google Books provides much by way of helpful information on it). Maybe Sitwell referred to the Périchole letter song somewhere and Gammond or someone else mixed it up with the book's title? --GuillaumeTell 20:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I shall be going to the British Library next week and will order Sitwell's book to check. Tim riley (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: Excellent biographical article. I've worked through the "Life" sections; the "Works" will have to wait a bit. Also a few minor copyedits which you are welcome to revert if you don't like them. Here are my comments:-

Lead
  • Shouldn't the fact that "Jacques" was an assumed name be mentioned in the opening sentence of the lead, e.g. "(born Jacob Offenbach)"?
    • I don’t think the MoS pronounces on this. (I find the MoS a frustratingly unhelpful document, but perhaps that's just me being dense.) I followed the pattern familiar to me from articles on others known by names they weren't born with, e.g. Edward German and Irving Berlin. – Tim riley (talk) 08:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the American spelling "favorites"?
Early life
  • "living singing" is awkward "...ing ...ing -ing". I'd say "singing" is redundant; it's implied by "cantor" which you have linked.
Cello virtuoso
  • This may have been raised already, but are you sure of the non-capitalisation in "comtesse de Vaux"? It looks vaguely wrong (like the "marquis de Sade")
    • There has been some discussion about capitalising "salle" in "Salle/salle Marigny" etc, and the vote went in favour of capitalising. We haven't discussed capitalisation of people's titles, but the preponderance of sources, both English and French, leave the "c" uncapitalised. – Tim riley (talk) 08:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be a little cautious about over-emphatic adverbs such as "extremely (well)"
  • "France's last king..." - but not last monarch. I'd make this clear.
    • Perhaps just "King Louis-Philippe" with a link? – Tim riley (talk) 08:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Returning to Paris when the immediate revolutionary turmoil had subsided, Offenbach found the grand salons closed down in the aftermath of the revolution." In the interest of keeping the wordcount down, I'd end the sentence at "closed".
Bouffes-Parisiens
  • (obiter dictum): 3,997 visits, yeah, right! Who on earth was counting?
    • Should I omit this, do you think? It made me smile. – Tim riley (talk) 08:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whether you omit it or not, I think there should be *something* in there to indicate that Offenbach had approached them repeatedly (something else to that effect has already been deleted, though I thought it was of interest). -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Champs-Élysées in 1855 were not..." Maybe "was not" in this context (name of a thoroughfare rather than of the heavenly regions)?
    • I pondered this when writing this section, and tried it on two native French speakers (neither of them from Paris, alas) and two English people who have a thorough knowledge of Paris. None of them came down firmly for either alternative, but they thought on balance they would say "was" for the present-day avenue, but "were" for the pre-Haussmann fields. – Tim riley (talk) 08:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If "was not" is just as correct in English English, I would use it, as it will then be non-jarring in all English usages. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Salle Choiseul
  • "He followed it with 15 more one-act operettas" - maybe indicate over what period?
  • "a preliminary to announcing..." Surely you mean "preliminary to the announcement of..."?
    • The gerund looks all right to me, but I've redrawn. – Tim riley (talk) 08:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "not altogether friendly" sounds like a polite euphemism (see Emperor Hirohito's speech after the atom bombs fell). Maybe call a spade a spade?
    • Well it wasn't a knock-down, drag-out feud, but they didn't much like one another. Gammond writes of Lecocq's "rather cool and ungrateful attitude towards Offenbach." – Tim riley (talk) 08:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "money" is inert, it doesn't threaten to do anything. "...the theatre was in constant danger of running out of money..."
Orphée aux enfers
  • First sentence: It has not been made clear that the restrictions on the Salle Marigny also applied to the Salle Choiseul.
    • I think it has: the first line of the Salle Choiseul section mentions it. – Tim riley (talk) 08:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "smash hit": encyclopedic?
    • I knew I wasn't going to get away with that. It really is what I want to say, but I've redrawn. Succès fou, won't do, I suppose? No, I thought not. – Tim riley (talk) 08:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Early 1860s
  • I've met this before without being certain I know the answer: Is "1860s" a plural term, to be followed by "were"? It is after all a term which describes a single decade. But "The 1860s was" sounds all wrong.
    • As a pedant in good standing, who writes "these data" unless forcibly restrained, I must confess I'd never thought of the point you make. A quick rummage in the archives reveals that The Guardian and The Times are both wholly inconsistent, with both "was" and "were" used. The "were"s, however, are in the majority. I'll stick with the plural, I think. – Tim riley (talk) 08:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Later 1860s
  • First paragraph: per MOS, "Wikipedia prefers italics for phrases in other languages"
    • But not for quotes. A bit unsure how to square that circle. – Tim riley (talk) 08:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was followed..." The subject of "This" is a little far removed for the pronoun to be used.
War and aftermath
  • Last paragraph: "Offenbach enjoyed renewed popularity..." Do you mean in France, since his popularity elsewhere does not seem to have suffered.
    • Good point. Redrawn. – Tim riley (talk) 08:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've put it back and added "France" as BB suggests. Feel free to revert, but I thought your older phrase was more usefully descriptive, because nowhere else in the article do we say that his last operettas were again popular in France. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a day or two before I can cover the rest of the article. It has been pretty well reviewed, so if you want to move it on, don't feel you have to wait for me. Most enjoyable and instructive (and Offenbach looks exactly like my old Physics master of a few decades back. He was not a nice man.) Brianboulton (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall certainly wait. No rush whatever. In the interim I'll address your first batch of comments, above. N.b. unlike your physics master, Offenbach was a nice man. Rocky in the "forsaking all others" department but otherwise a thoroughly good chap. Tim riley (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Geography —The Prussia/Prussian issue

Please see Cologne is not a Prussian city. It's disappointing to see corrections being removed from the article. That's contrary to the way a 'peer review' should operate. --Kleinzach 01:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This hinges on whether it is helpful to the reader to add that Cologne was the capital of Jülich-Cleves-Berg, a province of the kingdom of Prussia, or whether "Prussian" tout court is clearer. User:Kleinzach wants the full geographical detail in the main text; I have footnoted the information about Jülich-Cleves-Berg but will restore to the main text if there is a consensus in favour of doing so. Tim riley (talk) 08:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't hinge on that. It hinges on the time context. Cologne had a special status for a short period (1815-22) around JO's birth, I've suggested one way of explaining this, but there will be other possibilities. What isn't correct it to baldly refer to Cologne as a Prussian city (quote) "Offenbach was born . . . in the Prussian city of Cologne"(unquote) — in 1819, before 1819 and presumably still now! (The attentive reader will react by wondering whether it's a mistake or a different city, somewhere in the east.)
However, what is unpleasant is that Tim riley turns an editing issue into another ad hominem attack[1]: "Oh, I know where Cologne is; my family background is from those parts. . . . Dumbing down? Rather an offensive remark, and suggestive of a certain WP:OWN problem . . . I note that the article as it stood when I began expanding it . . . after your 168 edits did not say where Cologne was other than that it was German. Tantrums on this page are in revealing contrast . . . " Hmm. Offenbach deserves better, but I won't comment further. I don't edit war or abuse other contributors. --Kleinzach 09:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief! Now that User:Kleinzach has got that off his or her chest, can we have comments on the substantive issue: whether to leave the info about the province in the footnotes or put it in the main text? Tim riley (talk) 10:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly states that O. was born in Cologne. It then states that Cologne was a "Prussian city" and blue-links the word Cologne. There is then a footnote that says" "From 1815 the western German province of Jülich-Cleves-Berg, of which Cologne was the capital city, was part of the kingdom of Prussia." That seems clear to me. Kleinzach, are you suggesting a change to the wording in the footnote? I think that adding these details to the main text would be distracting to the vast majority of readers. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I correctly understand User:Kleinzach, his/her (good faith) contention is that Cologne was not "a Prussian city" in that though a province of Prussia, Jülich-Cleves-Berg was not within the old kingdom of Prussia. Tim riley (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks very good to me - thanks for your work on it. Here are some nitpicky suggestions for improvement.

  • "heavy defeat" just sounds off to my ear in the lead When the empire collapsed in 1870 after heavy defeat in the crucial battle of the Franco-Prussian War, Offenbach found himself out of favour in Paris because of his imperial connections and his German birth.
    • Shall remove the adjective (often a good thing to do!) Tim riley (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can understand why calling Cologne a Prussian city is a bit jarring. I wonder if it would work better in a different wording. Perhaps Offenbach was born Jacob or Jakob Offenbach[n 2] in the German city of Cologne, which was then a part of Prussia.[12][n 3] His birthplace in the Großen Griechenmarkt was a short distance from the square that is now named after him, the Offenbachplatz.[6] Or even something like Offenbach was born Jacob or Jakob Offenbach[n 2] in the German city of Cologne, which had become part of Prussia less than five years before his birth.[12][n 3]
    • I can understand this, too - support Ruhrfisch's first suggestion. --GuillaumeTell 15:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks like a majority to me. Will change accordingly. Tim riley (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • German of that era tended to use C and K almost interchangably, so I am not surprised at the sources on Jacob vs Jakob
    • Am I making too much of the spelling variation, I wonder? It's noticeable that the older books use "Jakob" and the post 1980 ones use "Jacob". Shall see what comments are made at FAC. Tim riley (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure you could say "the visit was a furore" so is this correct? The visit was a success, although not the furore that Offenbach's later works aroused in London.[84]
    • How about "sensation" instead of furore? -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I queried this up above but Tim seems to prefer the old-fashioned meaning to the contemporary one. -- GuillaumeTell 15:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Mutter mutter grumble from TR. Another majority against me. Will change. (Bear in mind that Offenbach had a reputation in Italy for possessing the Evil Eye, hence Rossini's fingering for his little piano piece for Offenbach, so beware!) Tim riley (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this is the English Wikipedia, should there be translations of the French in things like frequent characteristic of Offenbach's word setting was the nonsensical repetition of isolated syllables of words for comic effect; an example is the quintet for the kings in La belle Hélène: "Je suis l'époux de la reine/Poux de la reine/Poux de la reine" and "Le roi barbu qui s'avance/Bu qui s'avance/Bu qui s'avance."[n 19]? Perhaps in a note?
    • Uh, "I am the spouse of Hélène, spouse of Hélène, spouse of Hélène", assuming the final "e" is pronounced; "The bearded King who advances, King who advances, King who advances"? Also need a translation for Footnote 19 (La Périchole) - "Husbands who ob-, husbands who -stin-, husbands who -nate-, husbands who -ly, husbands who obstinately refuse ..." (translation by Michael Feingold and Richard Pearlman, used in the Buxton production of 2002). --GuillaumeTell 15:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The kings' couplets really don't lend themselves to literal translation, as Guillaume says. John Wells did a nice version for Scottish Opera, from memory e.g. "His strength renewed Agamemnon/Nude Agamemnon/Nude Agamemnon" but I think it's probably best left untranslated here. But the Feingold/Pearlman translation from Périchole is near enough to the ipsissima verba to be worth a mention, and I'll gratefully adopt it. Tim riley (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The one I've sung goes: "Husbands Who are re- , husbands who are cal- , husbands who are ci- , husbands who are trant, husbands who are recalcitrant...." You could say just "Husbands who obstinately refuse", or "Husbands who are recalcitrant". -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really not much else I found to tweak - I wonder if some mention of his music's continuing popularity and use in 20th century and later of his works might be included. I am pretty sure some cartoons use his melodies, for example.
    • What about the Famous Arias I suggested up above? The Doll Song isn't the only one that's been excerpted in recitals. --GuillaumeTell 15:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have noted the above, and have been rummaging in the archives for cited favourites. I'll be expanding the section before FAC, and will (be warned) be asking GT for further comments before long. Tim riley (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saint-Saens's Carnival of the Animals uses can can for the tortoise/turtle, for example (much slowed down).
    • So it does. I'll mention that. Excellent. Tim riley (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please let me know when this is at FAC and I will happily support.
    • Not me. I will require much begging and cajoling. Flattery will help. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I shall probably resort to a hat-pin through the fleshy part of the leg. Tim riley (talk)
        • Threats, entreaties, prayers: all useless. I am adamant! Family pride, how do you like that, my buck? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is splendid stuff and hugely helpful. Thank you to Ruhrfisch and to Guillaume Tell and Ssilvers for supplementaries. I have a fair bit to do before taking this to FAC, but you may all be assured that I shall be knocking at your doors in a week or two! Thank you all. Tim riley (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the c vs k in his name is fine to mention. My french is atrocious (I know vert is green, and not much more), so I did not even know it was a bearded king or whoever - I think translating the first line would be enough (the repetition is clear, even if the sense is not). If there is a clever way to translate the sense of the repetition in English, perhaps include that too (your call). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Étretat

I cannot see any mention of his home in Étretat (http://images.halinet.on.ca/74265/image/191549) although the date on that web article seems to be too early. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a very nice picture of the house, and I originally intended to use it, with a few words, but alas, space constrains us! There's so much one would like to add, such as the early patronage of Henri de Villemessant, and the later role of the Comte de Morny, but we are already well over 10,000 words (nearer 11,000 in fact). Tim riley (talk) 07:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the rule on the maximum length of FAs? What are the space constraints? It is very clear that FAs should be comprehensive. I don't think that anything in this article is rambling or too detailed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, of course, but authors of encyclopaedia articles simply can't allow themselves the luxury that writers of books can when it comes to enjoyable byways. It is interesting (I think) that de Villemessant founded Le Figaro and backed Offenbach, and that de Morny protected and even (semi-secretly - something of an open secret) collaborated with Offenbach, but I really think for an encyclopaedic article we need to apply something akin to Occam's razor and stick to the real essentials. There was some raising of eyebrows when I took Elgar to FAC at the length and, some felt, digressiveness of the text. Tim riley (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I used Dr Pda's prose size tool and it shows the article as Prose size (text only): 47 kB (7684 words) "readable prose size" which is not that bad. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you – that's rather reassuring, though my word-count tool gives nearer 11,000 as the text size. Tim riley (talk) 08:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[left]I think the two extra items you mention should go in (along with Étretat). There may be other things as well. I will try to read it all in detail over the next days and make some suggestions.Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be in favour of restraint. Ssilvers and I disagree strongly (though of course in the most friendly manner) about this. I think that in writing an encyclopaedia article there is a discipline that means jettisoning all but the centrally important information. The way I see it is to ask what a reader of an article would be looking for. I think he or she would not thank us for clogging Orphée aux enfers and La Périchole with country houses and newspaper sponsors. Those seeking more on those lines are well catered for in the published books, but encyclopaedic articles should not be too long and detailed to put off the casual user. After all, Grove's article (by Andrew Lamb) is less than 3,000 words. Verb sap. Tim riley (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You cut me to the quick. Or, at least, you cut Offenbach to the quick. I shall have Jeeves fetch the Pistols! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since the Wikipedia is not a physical book, the physical limits to the amount of information that can be added are in a practical sense non-existent. This is the main introductory article dealing with his biography. That doesn't mean that separate articles dealing with particular periods or topics relating to his biography and going into more depth may not eventually be created. As an example, the Tchaikovsky biography has a separate article relating to the circumstances surrounding his death. Perhaps it's more a question of how to organize the information, rather than not allowing more information to be added. Of course, it has to be considered notable, but the standard for notability may become more relaxed after the basic information has been covered. I can imagine that at some point in the future the amount of information on Offenbach's life in the Wikipedia might exceed that found in many of the physical books. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'd go along with all of that. My present concern (not shared by all, as we see) is to stop the present article getting too big to be user-friendly.
Time, ladies and gentlemen, please!

I think it's probably time to close this PR and archive it. Next step, I think, is to get the section on well-known numbers into the article. I'll make a start in the next few days: grateful for any input on the article page or talk page thereafter. Huge thanks to all who have contributed so fully above. Tim riley (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Jacques_Offenbach/archive1&oldid=1089263956"