Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 22:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Starting first read-through. More in the next day or so. Tim riley talk 22:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plainly meets all the GA criteria and is, in my view, in the region of FA standard. A few suggestions you might like to consider (no obligation):

• However
  • You overuse (in my view) the word "however", which occurs 17 times, and in most cases could be dispensed with without damaging the prose, and indeed, in my view, improving it. Mostly annihilated
• Date ranges, passim
  • The MoS would have us write " the 1842–43 season" and not "the 1842/43 season" Done
• Quotation marks
  • I'm not sure of your rationale for when to use single quotes and when double. I think the MoS would have us use doubles throughout as the norm.
• Duplicate blue links:  Done
  • I due Foscari
  • La Fenice
  • Victor Hugo
  • Luisa Miller
  • Un ballo in maschera
  • Giacomo Meyerbeer
  • Gioachino Rossini
  • Friedrich Schiller
  • Tannhäuser
  • Aria
  • Grand opera
  • Otello
  • Aida
  • Richard Wagner
  • Verismo
  • Milan Conservatory
  • Italian unification

I've got all of these but Un ballo in maschera - That has a caption link, and a text link, which I think is the only reasonable way to do it, as you can't know which they'll read first. I also could not find a double link for "aria" or "Milan Conservatory". I've left "Italian unification", because it's two very different terms, and both kind of are called for in the context. I'd be inclined to relink if it's been several pages, so I might suggest restoring Schiller and Tannhäuser, and maybe "grand opera" Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 1842–49: the "Galley Years" begin All done but one, see comment below.
  • There is a stray closing square bracket in the fourth para.
  • "later conducting the premieres of many of his works in their premiere performances in the USA" – too many premieres
  • "It is the only one of Verdi's operas of his "early period" to remain regularly in the international repertoire" – excluding Nabucco, presumably? For the period 25 July 2013 to 25 July 2015 Operabase lists 514 performances of Nabucco to 264 of Macbeth.
  • "which transpired within days of La battaglia di Legnano" – "transpire" means to become known"; the OED labels it a misuse when used as a synonym of "to occur, happen, or take place".
• 1849–53: Fame
  • "Subsequent productions (following some rewriting) throughout Europe over the following two years however fully vindicated the composer." – could do with a citation (and without a "however" in my view). Done
• Politics
  • Did you intend all four letters of "Viva" to be in bold? This was a leftover from old article - now changed
• 1860–1887: from La forza to Otello
  • "(in one case, embezzling), stewards" – I don't think you want the comma after the closing bracket Done
  • "but its performance was abandoned (and was not performed until 1988)" – "performance" seems to be the subject of the verb "performed" here. Done
  • Requiem or Requiem? – we have both in this section Changed to plain upright, per WP practice
• Personality
  • [Passing remark: Rosselli comments that in the Requiem "The prospect of Hell appears to rule...[the Requiem] is troubled to the end," and offers little consolation – Roselli should have heard Colin Davis conduct the Sanctus – sheer unbounded joy.]

Those are the totality of my suggestions. Nothing to frighten the horses, and once you've adopted or rejected them we can pass on to the tape-cutting ceremony. This review has taken hours longer than I expected because, appetite whetted by your text, I had to break off to listen to numerous recordings of various bits from the operas. Most pleasurable on all counts. – Tim riley talk 17:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Er, hi there Tim! - many thanks for these comments which, however, it transpires I shall carefully review tomorrow (Sunday).(see comments in green).--Smerus (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've done some of the grunt work. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact most of it, many thanks!--Smerus (talk) 09:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I think done now - but:The Nabucco phenomenon -" "It is the only one of Verdi's operas of his "early period" to remain regularly in the international repertoire" – excluding Nabucco, presumably? For the period 25 July 2013 to 25 July 2015 Operabase lists 514 performances of Nabucco to 264 of Macbeth." Very interesting aspect here of changing tastes. The supporting citation is from Chusid in 1997, when Nabucco made only rare appearances. In the period 2011 -2014 its status rose considerably due to 150 years of Italian unification and Verdi bicentenary. But as an opera it's not that great and I should be very surprised if it maintained this recent prominence. Query: how to express this in article? I have attempted a solution which avoids WP:OR.--Smerus (talk) 10:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's just the job, I'd say. All else is fine, too. Stand back and give me room to wield the gold scissors:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I assume – by God, I hope! – this article is just making a pitstop at GAN on its way to peer review and FAC. Please ping me when at either. It will be a privilege and pleasure to participate. – Tim riley talk 11:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I need to think deeply about peer review/FA but will advise you. Best, --Smerus (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]