- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:29, 27 June 2011 [1].
English National Opera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Nominator(s): Tim riley (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The English National Opera is one of two of London's principal opera companies. It has a long and brave history of making opera accessible, and I think it deserves the best quality article possible. This article has had the benefit of a very thorough peer review for which I am grateful to all contributors. I believe it is now up to FA standard and ready for consideration as an FAC. – Tim riley (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I have proofread this article a couple of times over the past months and have given suggestions about content to the nominator, User:Tim riley. I have watched this article expand and improve, and I believe that it now meets the criteria for FA. As Tim noted, it has had the benefit of extensive comments from experienced and knowledgeable peer reviewers. It is complete, clear, engagingly written and neutral. It is also well-illustrated and sensibly organized. I support the promotion of this article without reservation. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The departure of the ballet company to Covent Garden two months later deprived Sadler's Wells of an important source of income; the ballet had been profitable and had since its inception subsidised the opera company" - does the citation in the explanatory note also support this material?
- It doesn't: a separate ref now added. Tim riley (talk) 05:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Old Vic was officially classed as a music hall" - source?
- Done. Tim riley (talk) 05:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not include all authors for Jonas refs?
- My usual practice is to include both when there are two authors (e.g. ref 34 and 48) but when there are three or more, to name only the first. (In another article I found myself writing "Sackville-West, Edward, Desmond Shawe-Taylor, Andrew Porter and William Mann. The Record Guide..." which I later felt was not kind to the reader's eye.) But quite happy to change if wanted. Tim riley (talk) 05:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, so long as you're consistent that works. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent in how you notate multiple authors
- Check for minor inconsistencies in reference format - for example, the use of an apostrophe instead of a comma (ref 12), inconsistent comma placement (16 vs 17), missing italicization (27), etc
- All your examples dealt with (thank you for spotting them); I've checked the others and made a few more amendments. Tim riley (talk) 05:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent in how you bundle refs - for example 27 vs 29
- Yes, good. I've gone for commas, rather than semicolons. 05:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Done. Tim riley (talk) 05:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can do. Not certain how to lay it out, as each of the three references refers to different page numbers. Do you recommend putting the pdf in the "Sources" and just the page numbers in the references? There is no author name or ISBN to quote, which might look a bit odd, perhaps. Tim riley (talk) 05:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC) [Mem to self: the page nos for the three citations are respectively (i) p. 197; (ii) pp. 51, 79 and 191; and (iii) pp. 25, 95, 110, 128, 148, 190 and 191] Tim riley (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, that would work. There's no requirement that "Sources" include just books, so having an entry without an ISBN shouldn't be a problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not for the first time I am grateful for your eagle eye for detail – many thanks. Glad to know your thoughts on the third and last points above. Tim riley (talk) 05:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All suggested changes now made. Tim riley (talk) 15:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I was one of the peer reviewers, and my concerns were answered at that stage. Accessible article on an interesting subject.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much: a most elegant and gratifying endorsement. Tim riley (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I gave this a lot of attention at peer review, as did several other reviewers, and between us the article had a thorough going-over. However, if you dig deep enough...Here are a few trivial points that I picked up on my latest reading. They can easily be fixed, and I see no reason to withhold support. A very fine article, full of information of great interest to opera-lovers.
- Re Santley: in this sentence "well known" is not postpositive, so the term should be hyphenated.
- The Soviet Union wasn't "former" in 1990
- Would it be more accurate to say that Marks inherited a large financial deficit from his predecessors (in the plural)? In the same sentence we have "restore" and "restoring", which is a bit repetitive.
- It is slightly confusing to say of the Ring, first "the cycle was staged at the Coliseum in 2004 and 2005" and later in the same paragraph "The four operas were given individual runs, but were never played as a complete cycle".
- In the "Operettas and musicals" section the sentence "In 1962, the company staged its first production of a Savoy opera, Iolanthe, shortly followed by The Mikado" repeats information already given, and could be rephrased accordingly.
That's all. Brianboulton (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much for your support, and for your input above and at PR. I've acted on all your suggestions above. Tim riley (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support by Ruhrfisch - I was also involved with the peer review, where all my concerns were addressed. I have one quibble, which do not detract from my support.
According to the MOS, images of people should face into the text, but the photo of Jonathan Miller faces out and should be left justified to draw the reader's eyes into the page.
Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image review by Ruhrfisch - I found the image of the Messiah performance on Flickr and uploaded it, so someone else might want to double check its licence (Flickrreviewbot was OK with it). All of the images in the article are free, though several do not use the standard templates for their source and other information. Compare the format of File:Royal Opera House and ballerina.jpg (with a template showing Description, Date, Source, Author and Permission) to the way that information is presented in File:London-coliseum.jpg Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most grateful to Ruhrfisch for the support (and the image). Miller picture moved left as recommended. Tim riley (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support with regard to Criterion 1a. This is clearly a highly polished article, which has been thoroughly prepared for promotion. Graham Colm (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for this support – gratefully received. – Tim riley (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is some inconsistency in year ranges: you generally and correctly use xxxx–xx, but occasionally use xxxx–xxxx. Please review. I also fixed some wayward p, vs. p., and removed a space from a page range. Minor stuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
