Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Richard Wagner/Archive 2

Article assessment 4: refinements
I've amended the points range with Peter's suggested scale. Where do we go from here? Perhaps we could together assess each of the Wagner opera articles (in chrono order), on the Talk pages? Would that be a good idea? -- Kleinzach 15:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There are a couple of ajustments I would like to see first.
 * Links both external and wiki could be added to Inline references, notes, sources
 * Yes agreed. -- Kleinzach 00:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Particularly with late Wagnerian opera, there is a whole issue of what the opera is about allegorically. Where does this fit into the scheme?
 * I think this is covered by the section I've renamed: Critical appreciation, discussion of music etc. -- Kleinzach 00:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * --Peter cohen 16:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've just made some amendments to the Operas points scheme. I've renamed the Singers section as "People" and attempted to make the wording more inclusive.  I haven't altered the points to be awarded for each element at all. --GuillaumeTell 17:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for making the updates. --Peter cohen 18:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hate to say this, but I don't think the new 'people' section works. We have singers, directors, managers, librettists (and a few anomalies) and I don't think a 'one-size fits all' approach works, especially for new editors. Having targetted, specific systems for different categories IMO will work well if we also assess category by category (and not article by article), hence my suggestion that we go back to GuillaumeTell's original idea of doing operas first. -- Kleinzach 00:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This discussion has become very long so I am going to section it. -- Kleinzach 00:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is my suggested scheme for opera directors.


 * What do you think? --Kleinzach 01:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Seems to be the same basic framework. Let's try it on Wieland Wagner Family background/studies: 3/5 Doesn't really explain what training he received. Could mention experimentation with lighting in concentration camp. Early career: 3/10 Doen't explain whose productions he designed for Mature Career: 15/25 Reasonably thorough, but room for more. List of productions: 3/10 No list but range indicated in career section. Critical appreciation: 2/15 No real discussion. COuld at least quote the referenced Bayreuth review. Videography: 7/10 I think this is complete but don't know for sure. Bibliography: 2/5 I suspect that there is more than one book about him. Illustrations: 0/10 None. Fair use justifications can be used for e.g. the Bayreuth Parsifal. Referencing etc.: 5/10 Should change to inline not links. This clearly was one of my early efforts. The previous material isn't sourced - presumably from Skelton but not certain. Total 40/100 Okay I'll give it to you that this is start. But there is reasonably opportunity to go for B next month when I've finished with the Czech opera drive. Let's see if I can find 20 points.--Peter cohen 10:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This time my score was different from yours - I gave Wieland Wagner 30, but the result is the same: Start. Wieland Wagner is not a typical director anyway. (I think a full list of Bayreuth productions with dates and recordings is really necessary here, also illustrations showing what his productions looked like.) But is the opera director scheme OK? That's the main point. -- Kleinzach 12:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Assuming no problem with the 'Opera directors' scheme I have replaced the 'People' one with 'Opera singers' and 'Opera directors' (with other ones to be added when and if necessary).

Shall we now go ahead and do the assessment of the Wagner operas? Chronologically? Starting with Die Hochzeit? On a special assessment comment page, or on the article talk page? Let me know when you are both ready! -- Kleinzach 23:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Things are quite badly timed for me as this is the month where I can do quite a lot of work on the WPO composers of the month. I'd rather spend this month's time on those and then turn to Wagner and assessments next month. Having done the assessments, I might then be willing to plow into improving some or the articles, having a number of books at home that aren't yet referenced in the articles. --Peter cohen 23:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm only going to spend about 15 minutes per assessment. I'm just interested in testing the system, not in improving the articles (at the moment). What about GuillaumeTell? -- Kleinzach 23:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well that's three hours plus, which would probably let me do a whole synopsis on something by one of the Czechs. --Peter cohen 23:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Someone else can do the synopsis, but not the assessment here. No? -- Kleinzach 01:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll be happy to do any/all of the assessments, and 15 minutes for each sounds about right. All that needs doing is to create a Comments page, allocate a class, alter the banner and put the  comments on the comments page, using the points system as a checklist.  If Peter is busy, then maybe you and I can do half each, then check each other's operas, and then Peter can run his eye over the lot if he has time. --GuillaumeTell 08:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Good. I'm happy to do all of them (the operas) and compare my results with yours, but could you lead the way and set it up as you understand the banners/comment pages thing a lot better than I do. Perhaps you can let me know when I should start? Thanks. -- Kleinzach 08:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I should have some time for this after lunch today. I'll report progress here. --GuillaumeTell 10:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll do one assessment a day. Feen and Liebesverbot done so far. And Parsifal too until it's changed while my back is turned.--Peter cohen 14:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm away till late tomorrow. I've got as far as Tannhäuser. --GuillaumeTell 09:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm up to Lohengrin and I've also done Wieland Wagner. -- Kleinzach 09:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Article assessment 5: Die Feen discussion
Now we've all three had a go...

It's both hard and obviously inappropriate outside this experimental context to assess an article that includes a substantial amount of your own work. But we all agreed on its being a B. I think that it will be useful to include some praise as well as suggestions for improvement. Because I know that 60 is the minimum for a B and I know the definition, I know that you both think of this article as having decent coverage of all the basic areas which will help someone who isn't already knowledgable about the opera get a good idea about it. However, diving in with the comments for improvement makes it sound as if its missing a lot and could feel like a kick in the teeth and discourage editors.

So something like:

"This gives a good introduction to the background of Die Feen and how often it is performed and a full summary of the plot which readers new to the opera will find useful, but they might appreciate some musical samples to gain a better idea of what Die Feen sounds like. (In addressing this point, please remember that sound samples have to comply with Wikipedia's fair use policy. See Music samples and Non-free content.) More advanced readers might hope for a more detailed discussion of critical views and of the music. To reach grade A will probably require the use of Grove or of similar references that devote more space to discussing the music of the opera in detail."

would be more encouraging. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter cohen (talk • contribs) 11:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually Grove only has a very brief paragraph on the music. It's difficult to develop articles on the more obscure works. I think this one is pretty good in the circumstances. Also, involved editors don't usually do assessments on WP. Maybe that's the best way to avoid this becoming personal? -- Kleinzach 15:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed about the difficulties (and how do we rate Die Hochzeit?!?). My comments above were intended to be businesslike - basically, explaining why the rating wasn't higher (I also gave it 64) and how to improve it - that's the purpose of assessment, and it's the sort of thing I've seen elsewhere.  I think it's also true that a lot of people in the Opera Project do have a feeling of individual ownership of particular articles (I do myself in the case of three or four), whereas that seems less the case in other areas in which I engage - local history, Shakespeare, etc. - where there are a lot of contributors.  So I also agree with Kleinsach's suggestion.


 * While doing the assessment, I also became aware of how little I know about this particular opera. That feeling will ease once we get past Rienzi.


 * As ever, I find Real Life intruding when I start promising to do Wikithings. If either of you want to get on with other operas, you can easily see what I did here, but I'll try to do the next three this evening. --GuillaumeTell 18:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I know your comments intended to be business-like and the suggested improvements are valuable. I was also aware of my having an emotional reaction and unfortunately emotions are not very business-like and yet all too common on Wikipedia. As a social worker, I am trained to question why I get emotion reactions in certain circumstances, but a lot of people will get an emotional reaction and not question it. Only yesterday I got a message from an editor upset about comments on his article. (Yes there was that expressed feeling of ownership.) The editor has hugely improved that article and contributed other stuff, but if he gets too upset, we risk losing him. I think some sort of ackowledgment of editors' efforts in reviews and finding a good word or two to say will help those who read the review to accept the suggestions for improvement. There's a concept called a "feedback sandwich" where you begin and end with positive comments and then put the suggestions for improvement in the middle. This is just an observation and doesn't detract from the value of the assessment project itself for allowing us to get a grasp of where effort can best be focused in the mid-term.--Peter cohen 22:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If Grove doesn't cover it properly, then that's a problem. However, I'm sure that there is academic material somewhere which makes a grade A article on Die Feen theoretically possible. BTW, does Grove provide anything useful not already in the article? And yes involved editors shouldn't assess an article. There are the twin sins of being overly self-critical or of being overly self-confident. There are plenty of people on Wikipedia and elsewhere with each of those faults. I think the emotion will come anyway from people who have dedicated a lot of time to an article when they read the suggestions.--Peter cohen 22:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all I don't think this is the right place for this kind of discussion. It's really not fair to make a future assessor read through all this. It's our first one so we have an excuse but this should really be on the Wagner talk page. Anyone object if I move it over?


 * But while I'm here: Yes we should assess all the opera including Die Hochzeit - obviously a stub. To answer Peter, yes Grove does make some useful comments on two or three of the arias, but it's very short. Actually it would be quotable. Incidentally my own view is that many articles will 'stop' at B or Start and that's not a problem. The articles that stop at Stub are the ones that shouldn't really be started I M O! -- Kleinzach 23:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've made a separate section for this discsuion. -- Kleinzach 23:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm happy for you to move it, if you want to. Though the sectioning may help future people. I think the original intention for GA was that it could provide a form of community acknowledgment for articles which have no potential for FA status because of the lack of in depth material available. I think that Die Feen certainly could become a GA which is why I'm still working on it. Obviously with a lack of an army of editors, we can't get everything opera to GA. But the fanaticism that RW attracts means that it ought to be practicable to get most of his operas to GA in the mid-term. For the higher levels, then we might need editors with access to academic articles or with in depth books to do the work. The latter is feasible with the late operas, (I have at least the Eno guides and mroe for the Ring and Parsifal) but Die Feen etc. don't have their own books of commentary.--Peter cohen 12:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

(moved from Talk:Die Feen/Comments) -- Kleinzach 01:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Article assessment 6: Compositions by Richard Wagner
I have now also assessed Category: Compositions by Richard Wagner. I have rated them all as stubs. The only one I had any doubts about was the Wesendonck Lieder. Perhaps you would like to check what I have done? In most cases there wasn't much to assess, but I thought to would be best to cover all the articles in the Wagner categories. -- Kleinzach 05:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As I've now caught GT up, I'll look at the lieder tomorrow rather than Lohengrin. Obviously we haven't got a marking scheme for this. Has anybody discussed assessment with WP:CM? If anyone should develop markign schemes for song cycles, it should be them. --Peter cohen 10:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, no let's not involve other projects! It would be too complicated and it's only one page after all! There are plenty of precedents for different projects to work in parrallel to each other - they can read each other's assessments anyway. -- Kleinzach 10:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Before starting the Ring operas, I am assessing Der Ring des Nibelungen: Composition of the text and Der Ring des Nibelungen: Composition of the music. (Incidentlly these lack pictures but otherwise IMO would be good candidates for GA.) -- Kleinzach 10:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've used what I can of the opera scheme and am marking out of 80. I've gone for Start on the lieder and really think it won't be too much work for someone with the right books to get it to B and thinking about GA.--Peter cohen 11:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Article assessment 7: Grading discrepancies
Of the five works all three of us have reviewed so far, the jury has split on one (Tannhäuser (opera)). Presumably we should go with the majority vote, i.e. Start.--Peter cohen 10:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've changed it. I hope GT is OK with this. Actually the difference between us all is very small. With a bit of work this will become B class. -- Kleinzach 10:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm OK with it. Looking again at my marking and your comments, I see that I was over-generous in the Background, Performance History and Recordings areas, and, as my original mark was 65, adjusting those takes it down to Start.  Do I need to record this as well on the Comments page, do you think? --GuillaumeTell 21:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think we should be seen as influencing each other. Some assessments may be controversial in the future and I think it will be necessary to show that we are acting independently. -- Kleinzach 22:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Peter, I am mystified by your Talk:Wesendonck Lieder/Comments - unsigned BTW. I didn't use a points scale becaiuse we don't have one for compositions, but that's not an issue - but how come you have awarded 28 out of 80? The points scales are all out of 100. If you award 28 points that would correspond with a stub, not a start. Am I missing anything? (Your actual comments are in line with mine.) -- Kleinzach 11:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I transferred what I thought appropriate from the opera scale, but marks for Synopsis, for example, didn't seem relevant.--Peter cohen 12:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the songs also have texts. In any case the synopsis only accounts for 10 points . . . anyway, over to GT on this one. -- Kleinzach 13:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The three topics I ignored were:
 * Tabulated list of roles 05
 * Synopsis 10
 * Notable arias, etc: (preferably embedded in the synopsis) 05
 * Given all five songs were named, that would have taken the score comfortably over 30/100 if I had tried to apply the lot. But ignoring all three means that I can apply the same basic scheme to the Siegfried Idyll and any other non-operatic work.--Peter cohen 13:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's try and keep all this in perspective. We only have a few articles on compositions and they are all short. The opera project doesn't have compositions at all. -- Kleinzach 14:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've rated it Start as well. Absence of sources doesn't automatically make an article a stub in any assessment system that I've seen. --GuillaumeTell 18:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

With Talk:Der Ring des Nibelungen/Comments I've now landed on a minority mark too. SO we now have no clear consensus marker.--Peter cohen 17:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Really no problem IMO. This is a unique situation with seven articles covering the same series of four works - we won't face it again. -- Kleinzach 23:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The Ring operas: Other reviewers have given Bs to these operas, but I consider them start class. Whilst a small amount of credit should be given for the existence of other articles, this one needs an appropriate level of discussion in line with WP:Summary. I note that Kleinzach and I also disagree on the relative merits of the articles on the first two operas.--Peter cohen 10:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Die Hochzeit. Noting here disagreement on how appropriate it is to follow marking scheme for incomplete work.--Peter cohen 09:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have retitled this section as 'Grading discrepancies'. I believe this is more accurate and doesn't give a misleading impression. Disagreement implies something personal and irreconciliable, whereas here we are just differing in our interpretations of assessment guidelines. Anomalous articles - such as the seven Ring articles - will inevitably produce some odd results. Nothing remarkable in that. Let's keep this in perspective and remember that the Opera Project has 4,000 articles. Also remember that we are not reviewing the articles. It's just an assessment! -- Kleinzach 03:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ride of the Valkyries I think there is enough useful information for this to be Start class.--Peter cohen 11:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg is now a start. I seem to have been a few marks less generous than the other two of you.--Peter cohen 11:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to thank all the contributors to the article assessments. My main interest is in writing the articles, so I've not attempted to join this. I think the grading system is rather stern (Meistersinger is a start? T&I only gets a "B"? I think I'd rate both of these a level higher than theis) but the comments make it very clear what has to be done to improve, and I'll certainly get stuck in there when time allows. Thanks again.--Dogbertd 14:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This has been an experiment. We've been trying to create an objective system for rating articles. Ideally those doing the assessments should be impartial and uninvolved so we're grateful you've left us to get on with it, even if our comments have inevitably been provocative at times. Some individual ratings may seem harsh, but this is only a starting point. I hope we have identified articles that can go to peerr review and GA nomination, which should be a much more through examination than these assessments have been. -- Kleinzach 02:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In Mastersinger's case, you currently have only 2/25 from me for illustrations + recordings + key numbers. Getting the extra nine marks for B should be relatively simple. Once the assessment has finished, I will want to join in on the real work. And, as you know, I'm keen on the idea of collaborations, particularly for getting articles above B. As for Tristan, I'm not in favour of our having our own GA grade. So to get that, you need to go outside the project anyway. I provided comments towards what they look at.--Peter cohen 15:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * PS. I see that folks don't like the "potted" synopses I inserted into several of the articles. My rationale was that when these become FAs (ever optimistic), viewers might like to have this in the intro even if they don't want to read the whole article. However they can easily be omitted if there's a general dislike of them.--Dogbertd 15:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Potted synopses? Which ones are we talking about? Ones including in the 'lead' paragraph(s)? If so, yes I am not in favour of them. If the article is well organized (with clear headings) then the reader can go straight to the synopsis if he/she wants to only read about the plot. -- Kleinzach 02:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Some folks don't like them. I do.--Peter cohen 15:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've re-marked Parsifal. I think comments should be included in there. It's gone up a spot with Dogbertd's recent work from 78 to 82.

What might be considered of interest given that this is a marking experiment is that certain of the sub-marks have gone down. I don't know whether this a sign of my getting more used to using the scales or of intra-rater unreliability. It would be interesting if the other two people remarked it without looking at their earlier sub-scores. Given the work since we looked at it first time around, a drift upwards is to be expected. But fluctuations down would be interesting.--Peter cohen 20:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Winifred Wagner start class. I've gone with GT and downgraded this rating from B. (Explanation on the relevant page. Unfortunately I put a careless mistake on the change caption. I don't think we can edit those can we?)--Peter cohen 09:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You mean the Edit Summary. No, we can't, but you could make a trivial amendment and in the edit summary say "Edit summary below should read 'downgraded to Start'" or some such. --GuillaumeTell 14:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Article assessment 8: Progress
Your rating refers to the "Moreschi" system. Where is that described?--Peter cohen 18:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's the standard WP assessment scheme, tweaked by Moreschi to focus on operas and subsequently tweaked a bit more by Kleinzach (and I made a couple of extra edits), and it's at the top of the Wagner assessment page, before the points system, here. --GuillaumeTell 20:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah right. Thanks.--Peter cohen 21:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been calling the "standard WP assessment scheme" the Quality Scale. That's how it's designated on the assessment page. (BTW you might like to cast your eyes over the other items in the 'composition' category.) -- Kleinzach 22:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have now finished assessing all the compositions and the operas, leaving the Wagner studies and the people. -- Kleinzach 15:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have now finished the Wagner family articles - Mr and Mrs, the children, grandchildren and great grandchildren in Category:Richard Wagner. The assessments are quite short, as these are not full peer reviews. -- Kleinzach 10:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite a third of the way through the 36 identified articles. I'm working on an article a day, generally relatively meaty ones first. But as I'm busy today, I've just done a short one. I'm keeping track of progres at User:Peter cohen/sandbox and people are welcome to monitor where I've reached. I've done at least one article from each category and more operas than anything else. On the next few days that I'm not too busy, the last seven operas will be the articles I'll prioritise. I would definitely expect to have assessed them all by the end of the month, hopefully earlier.--Peter cohen 21:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I have now finished rating all the articles in the Wagner categories. I hope we can have at least two ratings per article (if in line with each other) or three if the first two differ. It will be good if we can conclude this soon, so we can discuss the next stage. -- Kleinzach 14:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to control my Wikipedia time. As part of this, I'm rationing myself to one a day and have just past the halfway mark. (Two today, because I missed yesterday.) Unless people add a whole lot more articles, this means I'll be done in two and a half weeks. Of the big articles, I still have to do, Tristan, Mastersingers, Parsifal, RW himself, Wagner controversies, Judaism and Music and Ludwig II. As someone who intends to do long-term work on the project I do intend to review the lot. I'm still tracking progress at my sandbox page.--Peter cohen 15:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've got 14 to go, including the Family Tree. They are mostly the articles on people and shouldn't take long to do, once I get round to it.  Progress, as well as points scores for the operas, is logged here. --GuillaumeTell 17:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is a list of articles still needing rating: -- Kleinzach 09:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Richard Wagner, Wagner controversies and Wagner family tree
 * Siegfried Wagner, Winifred Wagner and Houston Stewart Chamberlain
 * Wieland Wagner and Wolfgang Wagner
 * Nike Wagner and Katharina Wagner


 * I seem to have been afflicted by Moving Goalposts syndrome, which makes it difficult to work out exactly which articles we are dealing with. I've only just spotted the header below, which relieves me of the task of assessing Ludwig.  But then, re-checking the Wagner categories, I came upon WWV (Wagner), already assessed by both of you but completely new to me, plus Bodo Lafferentz and Udo Proksch, both in the Wagner Family category, the former having had his banner removed and the latter with no banner.  Meanwhile, it is not clear to me why Ernest Newman is part of the Project but Bryan Magee (or, indeed, Arthur Schopenhauer) isn't, and I have considerable doubts about Houston Stewart Chamberlain as well.  Other articles mysteriously not apparently covered include Bayreuth Festival, Music drama, Wagner Societies ... --GuillaumeTell 00:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Your MGS is doubtless a byproduct of my desire to keep things simple. This is a small project with a lot of (inevitable) anomalies. My view was that we should concentrate on assessments and avoid getting bogged down in categorization. However to answer your questions:
 * 1. IMO we only need two assessments that agree on the grade (e.g. WWV (Wagner)), a third is not essential.
 * 2. The black sheep Bodo Lafferentz and Udo Proksch are members of the family hence they are in the tree and the family cat, but since they have little to do with music it seems pointless to asess them. (Someone will probably point out that Lafferentz 'ran' the Bayreuth Festival but that has yet to be checked.)
 * 3. The Wagner Studies cat is probably unsatisfactory (less well defined than the family one) - partly as a result of the deletion of the Wagnerite and Anti-Wagnerite cats, but I don't think it's helpful to be sidetracked.
 * 4. Houston Stewart Chamberlain is included as a family member.
 * 5. I've added Wagner Societies to Cat Wagner studies.
 * 6. I've added Bayreuth Festival to Cat Richard Wagner.
 * 7. Maybe Music drama is best left to the Opera Project?
 * There may well be other Wagner articles out there. -- Kleinzach 01:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the above. Hopefully, the goalposts will now stay where they are, subject, perhaps, to a small number of extra additions. This is a dry run for the Opera Project, isn't it, and so, preferably, we should be trying to cover all the sorts of articles that are included there (see WikiProject_Opera). Here, we've now got two composers, no librettists except Wagner himself, plenty of operas, no singers (although we have a singers points scale), no opera houses, one opera company (if the Bayreuth Festival counts), no opera genres, no articles on opera recordings (except the Dutchman discography, which we included with the opera), and sundry articles on other topics, which, perhaps, might be useful for expanding the "Scope" section in WP:WPO - writers on opera, opera directors, opera managers, opera controversies, opera terminology, opera publishers (and families of opera people?!?).... Anyway, it would be good if we could include just a few singers principally noted for their Wagner performances, say Wilhelmine Schröder-Devrient, Friedrich Schorr, Astrid Varnay, an opera house (uh, Bayreuth Festspielhaus?), an opera genre (yes, Music drama, which currently is actually all about Wagner and only introduces other composers in order to say that Wagner is better) and maybe an extra opera director/manager/conductor or two who is/are closely associated with Wagner but not a member of the Wagner family with all their extra baggage. That's only an extra 5-10 articles. --GuillaumeTell 17:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There are also the hordes of singers who we have listed on the project page or a sub page. And the decision made to remove Ludwig. I think we need the opportunity as a project to reach a consensus on who should or should not be included in the scope and should probably spin off another discussion heading.--Peter cohen 10:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking at the moving goalposts, I seem to have done 25 articles with 18 to go. Before this check I thought I was happilly scheduled to end on the day I was going to Rheingold. With the exception of Parsifal I have now done all the musical works.--Peter cohen 12:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is an updated list of articles still needing rating: (Peter, please note there are only 9 of them.) -- Kleinzach 02:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Richard Wagner, Wagner controversies and Wagner family tree
 * Siegfried Wagner, and Winifred Wagner
 * Wieland Wagner and Wolfgang Wagner
 * Ludwig Geyer
 * Bayreuth Festspielhaus


 * I've now finished my last one (Bayreuth Festspielhaus) - again. To avoid moving goalposts syndrome, I won't be doing any more Wagner assessments even if new articles are added to the project. I'll write a summary below and that will be the conclusion of the experiment as far as my input goes. -- Kleinzach 10:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Er, have you noticed what GT posted above about doing some singers etc? --Peter cohen 09:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I can certainly see Kleinzach's point about not putting the Wagner banner on singer articles, but, in the period after assessing this assessment exercise and before the whole thing is unleashed on the Opera Project, we need to test any points system that hasn't been used yet (i.e. the Singers one) in some way, and see if we can pin down (and also test) any points system for any other categories, presumably mainly or entirely categories of people (opera managers, for example). --GuillaumeTell 15:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the whole scope business needs to be clarified. The project page is encouraging articles on various subjects and implying that they come within our scope, but then we don't put our banners on those articles. Either they're in our scope or not and we should be consistent. It's something that the members of the project who are here for the mid-term really need to make our mind up over.--Peter cohen 10:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * While I'm here, I notice that the Biography Project (Arts and Entertainment division) has awarded a B to Wieland Wagner, whereas Kleinzach and I gave it a Start (sorry, Peter!)
 * --GuillaumeTell 10:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not unexpected for different projects to give articles different ratings. Take Ludwig II as an example. Kleinzach has decided to delist him from the project, but if that hadn't happened, we would have assessed the article on how well his sponsorship of Wagner was covered. A project on German political history would be more interested in his approach to unification; one on architecture in the castles he had built etc.--Peter cohen 10:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I am suffering from MTS (moving touchline syndrome). Can we finish the assessments first please? I hope we can then sum up what we have or haven't accomplished. (I have a lot to say.) After that we can discuss where to go next. If we jump around discussing assessments, then reviews, then categories, then 'project scope' we will not decide anything, nor will we leave any coherent record of what we've done.

Regarding Biography Project (Arts and Entertainment division) B, have you noticed that the our rating appears when you click their show/comments box? It's not a problem but it's something to be aware of.-- Kleinzach 10:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, and I assumed that that was why you started putting "Assessment by Richard Wagner Project" at the top of our Comments pages (the WP:BIO people seem not to bother with mundane things like comments). --GuillaumeTell 15:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've now added a second opinion to all the Comments pages lacking one. If Peter can find time to rate Siegfried Wagner, then we're at the end of this phase of the trial. --GuillaumeTell 21:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)