Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Royal Opera, London/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 GrahamColm 11:21, 18 February 2012 [1].


Royal Opera, London

[edit]

Royal Opera, London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Tim riley (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The other London opera company, the ENO, already has a Featured Article, and it seems to me that the Royal Opera, based at Covent Garden, ought to have one as well. This company has a shorter history than its rival establishment, having been formed from scratch at the end of the Second World War, developing to top international standards by the mid-1960s. The article has had a thorough peer review, with later supplementary comments and proof-reading, from several Wiki-colleagues, to whom I am most grateful. As always, comments on balance, referencing, images, prose etc will be gladly received. – Tim riley (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having already waxed lyrical about this excellent article when it was submitted for GA status,

What else? Trying to nitpick this article is a hard task. Support MistyMorn (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done.

Nikkimaria (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, as ever, for your unblinking eagle eye. Tim riley (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images check out in terms of licensing, though the Haitink photo is rather blurry. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, it's a case of resorting to what's available. Tim riley (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a drive-by comment, but it would be nice to add more images of the actual building (see the commons link I added). I was trying to remember if I'd been inside the building before (turns out I had!) Very beautiful establishment. Ruby 2010/2013 20:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some are available, but this article is about the company, rather than the building which has its own article here. I am wary of blurring that distinction too much. Tim riley (talk) 07:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my apologies. Ruby 2010/2013 22:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No apologies required! I'm grateful for your comments, and just wanted to explain my thinking. 81.178.197.68 (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Sorry - not logged in: 'twas I - Tim riley (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and comprehensiveness. I had the privilege of reviewing this at PR, and my concerns were answered and I see only improvement since. Actually, I've seen the Royal Opera twice, once in the old Covent Garden, once in the new. Tim has attained a similar improvement, at considerably less cost.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this (and delighted chuckling, too). Tim riley (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to a captivating performance: the order of appearance of famous singers in the lead is not obvious. The conductors are chronological, singers likely the same? But at that point I would also understand by alphabet. I admire Elisabeth Schwarzkopf a lot, but think the average reader may be more familiar with Maria Callas. Hotter and Flagstad are mentioned together in the article, how about the lady first? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. I'll recast. Thank you for this. Tim riley (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After some pondering I thought that alphabetical order was best, and so, as it happens, it's ladies first for Callas, though not for Schwarzkopf. Tim riley (talk) 14:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, thank you. I never was there, but Kiri Te Kanawa as Contessa changed my life, good memories! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support with a couple of quibbles (obviously):-

  • I notice that the word "opera" occurs three times in the first line, three times in the second and twice more in the remainder of the paragraph. That's a lot of opera. I see the difficulty, because the word is in the present and former names of the company, and in the name of the other London company. But I wonder if a bit of tweaking could get rid of one or two?
  • The word "namely" before the list of names at the end of the lead should definitely be blowtorched.

I raised a lot more issues at the peer review, but can't identify anything else that needs fixing. A great effort. Brianboulton (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support, and for the two comments, with both of which I entirely concur and have acted on. Tim riley (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, this is a great read, just minor things I picked up with regards to sourcing:

  • For Ref 108, if you want I found a direct link to The Independent article. Same with 103.
    • Having had to reroute innumerable links to The Times after R. Murdoch erected his pay-wall I am chary of linking to other papers' sites lest they follow suit. I have more faith that Newsbank will continue to be accessible to WP readers. Tim riley (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah yes, never thought that way. The Independent will be going paywall for non-UK readers in the coming months, so that could be problematic.
  • It should be made clear that Newsbank is the 'publisher' in all the references you have retrived stories from that site. So the newspaper becomes the 'work'. – Lemonade51 (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm slightly surprised at that. I think of Newsbank as the platform (cf. JSTOR, Gale, Chadwick et al) and the copyright owners as the publishers. Tim riley (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough. I did double check some articles on Newsbank just now and it does clearly state the copyrights underneath.

Support Read through this yesterday at lunch and found it as I've said above, a great article. Prose shows clarity for one and there is a great selection of images. Ideally this should make the reader want to know more about the Royal Opera – preferably seeing it first hand. Alas I haven't but shall make a note of it in the coming year. – Lemonade51 (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, both for your support and your helpful comments above. I didn't know about The Independent's plans, and I'll ask non-UK colleagues to check for blocked links in other articles when the paywall you mention comes into effect.

Support - A few months ago, I felt compelled to visit the building to learn more about it's archetecture. However, my attention was soon drawn to the RO instead. The pamphlets were brief and uninformative and I left feeling as if I needed to know more. Then comes this article. One should print this out instead to take round. It's far more engaging and whole lot more informative. Another great article Mr.Riley. -- Cassianto (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your kind words and your support. Tim riley (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Royal_Opera,_London/archive1&oldid=1079394034"