Template:Did you know nominations/Germaine Bailac
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Kingsif (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Germaine Bailac
.jpg)
Bailac in 1913
... that Germaine Bailac (pictured) created in 1911 the role of Phenice in Déjanire, the last opera by Camille Saint-Saëns, at the Opéra de Monte-Carlo?Source: [1]- Reviewed:
to come - Comment: would be nice pictured in March
- Reviewed:
Created by Ipigott (talk) and Gerda Arendt (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 12:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC).
- Comment: The article itself doesn't mention that she created the role, and the fact itself needs to be within the body of the article as I recall, so that should be rectified. A really interesting potential ALT within the article is that she played the character of Carmen 3000 times, which is really interesting in itself! Ornithoptera (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Ornithoptera: - I added the hook fact explicitly. Could this make International Women's day? Victuallers (talk) 10:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- "creating a role" is short (and professional language) for "performing a role in the world premiere" whch is needlessly long for the few characters we have here. - The critic said "qui en a fait une création vraiment remarquable" (a truly remarcable creation), which we could quote in French also if needed. Victuallers, could you perhaps do that? - I am not sure about the reliability of the Carmen source, on top of having mentioned Carmen many more times on DYK than this last opera. I also believe that mere quantity is not "really interesting" to me. - Better pictured any day in March than no pic on IWD, if you ask me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Isn't "creating a role" technically jargon then? Most people outside of opera may not understand that sense of the word and it would be better to use a more broadly understandable word in this case. And I agree with Ornithoptera that her playing the same role thousands of times is very interesting to a broad audience. How about:
- ALT1 ... that French mezzo-soprano Germaine Bailac (pictured) played the title role in Bizet's Carmen at least 3,000 times?
- This isn't technically a pure role hook because, while it does start with "performer played X role in Y", it adds additional context that makes said performance more quirky or eyecatching. Her playing Carmen by itself would not really be a good hook, but mentioning that she performed the role over 3,000 times would let readers realize how impressive her career was. The original hook is very niche, Ornithoptera's suggestion is far more broadly appealing. Remember that when we write hooks we write for our readers, not for ourselves. We target what could be interesting to people other than us, not just ourselves. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Did you even read the above? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- I did and I would personally disagree. The term "created" is jargon and needs to be clarified, and her performing a role 3,000 times is a more broadly interesting fact than her being the first person to play Phenice (a role most people have probably never heard of, unlike Carmen in which most people are likely to have at least heard of the opera). Her playing the role 3,000 times may not seem significant to you but to anyone who's unfamiliar with opera they would find it impressive and a great show of her talent and experience. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- All it shows is that she was a hard worker, and willing to perform at mediocre places in the provinces in a crowd-pleasing role. I have no time to argue now. My mind is on Prayer for Ukraine. You could do me a favour if you wouldn't interfer with the reviews of others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- In any case the original hook's wording probably shouldn't be used due to the "create" wording. Perhaps this wording works better? It would be more immediately understandable to an interested reader.
- ALT0a:
... that Germaine Bailac (pictured) played the role of Phenice during the 1911 world premiere of Camill Saint-Saëns's last opera Déjanire?
- ALT0a:
- I removed the mention of the theater since the central hook fact here is Bailac playing the role at the world premiere and mentioning the theater's name seemed superfluous. I'm not convinced that this particular hook fact is the best option for this article, but if consensus decides that it's the path forward then it would be better to have a less jargony hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- I don't agree, twice. "to create a role" isn't jargon but the professional term. In Portal:Opera/DYK/Did you know?, I find it 20 times, and I don't remember any complaints on ERRORS. But if people want it clumsy, here you go (opera singers don't just "play", or "sing", as they do both, the "perform" or "appear")
ALT0a: ... that in 1911, Germaine Bailac (pictured) appeared in Monte-Carlo in the world premiere of Déjanire, the last opera by Saint-Saëns?- I believe that many readers will find Monte-Carlo interesting, and the pic is from a glamour magazine there. I thought we should mention the role to not make people think it was the title role, but that's the first thing to be dropped. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- I reviewed now Template:Did you know nominations/Gloria Rojas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- In any case the original hook's wording probably shouldn't be used due to the "create" wording. Perhaps this wording works better? It would be more immediately understandable to an interested reader.
- All it shows is that she was a hard worker, and willing to perform at mediocre places in the provinces in a crowd-pleasing role. I have no time to argue now. My mind is on Prayer for Ukraine. You could do me a favour if you wouldn't interfer with the reviews of others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- I did and I would personally disagree. The term "created" is jargon and needs to be clarified, and her performing a role 3,000 times is a more broadly interesting fact than her being the first person to play Phenice (a role most people have probably never heard of, unlike Carmen in which most people are likely to have at least heard of the opera). Her playing the role 3,000 times may not seem significant to you but to anyone who's unfamiliar with opera they would find it impressive and a great show of her talent and experience. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Did you even read the above? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Isn't "creating a role" technically jargon then? Most people outside of opera may not understand that sense of the word and it would be better to use a more broadly understandable word in this case. And I agree with Ornithoptera that her playing the same role thousands of times is very interesting to a broad audience. How about:
This nomination needs a full review, since one has never been done. Flibirigit (talk) 17:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Once the QPQ is complete then its fine as its long and new enough, its neutral, no bare urls, hooks are OK, the main one would appeal to opera insiders maybe, but the 3,000 fact would get more clicks from the wider masses. Let the picker pick. Earwig and I see no paraphrasing. Good to go once the QPQ is resolved. Victuallers (talk) 13:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- I reviewed qpq, and that doesn't have to reach a tick to count, Victuallers. The sheer number is no quality, and the sourcing for that number is poor. She was sort of chosen by a major composer for his last work, - that should interest even the masses, and says much more about her qualities than a high count of mediocre performces of a crowdpleaser in the provinces. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
I said what I thought, not sure I needed a reminder of your position. This overstated debate over hooks isnt very welcoming for reviewers. (I'm doing this as a favour for Ian). Victuallers (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the tick. The explanation was more for the prep builder than you, sorry if that was not clear. I completely agree that there's too much debate over hooks. If there is an acceptable first suggestion - as I believe was here - searching for slightly better alternatives isn't "bad" but costs time that could better go into new articles imho. Who cares in the end if she is seen by 800 or 1,200 which is my estimate for the difference in attractiveness. No way the 3000 Carmens would get her into stats regions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- I reviewed qpq, and that doesn't have to reach a tick to count, Victuallers. The sheer number is no quality, and the sourcing for that number is poor. She was sort of chosen by a major composer for his last work, - that should interest even the masses, and says much more about her qualities than a high count of mediocre performces of a crowdpleaser in the provinces. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- I undid my promotion. Best not to annoy someone on their talk page repeatedly after saying that you would drop it. SL93 (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- There is some consensus here that the Déjanire hooks do not meet the "interesting to a broad audience" criterion and are now struck. Either the 3,000 performances sourcing issue needs to be addressed so it can be used or a completely new direction is needed here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Victuallers, Gerda Arendt, SL93, and Narutolovehinata5: A sentence in the article caught my eye—how would y'all feel about a hook such as ALT2: ... that after Germaine Bailac's debut opera performance, she was already being praised as among the most competent contraltos?
- Listen, it's not a barn-burner, but I think it strikes a good balance between substance and hookiness. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- I would be fine with ALT2. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- It's better than the quantity bragging. But: it presents no info about where and when, while the original connects to "French-speaking" in "Monte Carlo" at the time when SS was still alive. Also: many readers may not even know what a contralto is. I didn't when I came to the English Wikipedia. Always learning, always wanting to be as precise as can be. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: hmm. Then, what would a satisfactory ALT2a look like for you? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- I still like the original best. We have a catchy picture, - no extra quirkyness needed, imho. These "first", "best", largest" hooks are boring to me, but perhaps I'm the only one. You could do a beauty contest on WT:DYK. - My prediction: The original with the image 1k, without image 600, the "best contralto" with image: 1,2k, without 900. Are these little differences really worth our time? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: hmm. Then, what would a satisfactory ALT2a look like for you? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- I said what I thought, not sure I needed (another) reminder of Gerda's position or you need one of mine. Her very recent argument above is convincing, so why we have had a long debate over what she sees as "little differences"? Are there two people who like the original hook?This overstated debate over hooks isnt very welcoming for reviewers, and I only got involved as a favour for Ian. Victuallers (talk) 08:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- If we really had to pick a hook, I would still prefer ALT1, as it's a surprising hook fact and probably the one that appeals to the broadest audience here. As mentioned by other people here, the original hook is very niche and probably really only appeals to opera buffs like Gerda herself. Leeky's suggestion is better and I would have been fine with it too, but I think Gerda's right that it may be a bit niche if people don't know what a contralto is (although I guess the link helps). I'm not the type who truly cares about pageviews, but what I do care about is meeting the DYK criteria. IMO, ALT0 and its variants fail the "interesting to a broad audience" criterion, ALT1 and ALT2 meet it better. I think what we all need to remember on DYK is that it is not the nominator's interest that is of utmost importance but rather the audience's.
- As for the part about "small differences", even if a nominator does not like a particular hook, if consensus determines that it is unsuitable and there are better alternatives, then the nominator's wishes may be overturned if necessary. Despite not caring much for pageviews myself, given that I am of the "audience-interest-above-nominator's" school, I would think that the extra 300 views would ultimately be a better option for the encyclopedia's efforts than those 300 views lost, especially when Gerda's goal in DYK has always been for audiences to become more aware of classical music topics. I mean, if that's the goal, wouldn't more views be welcomed rather than going "I'd rather the hook get less views as long as the hook I want gets featured than a better hook that gets more people to click it but a hook that doesn't appeal to me"? Who's interest is more important in the choice of a DYK hook: the nominator's, or the audience? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- It looks like you missed that it has no ref following the sentence, and I don't see any convincing ref for it (not reading French, sorry). If you still want the quantity bragging please provide a ref. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- If the contralto thing is a big sticking point, we could always change it to "most competent in her vocal range". Ain't no thang. However, I would like everyone to please keep in mind that we can make this discussion as long as we want, but at the end of the day, we're gonna have to sit down and do the thing we were always gonna have to do from the beginning—choose something. That something is probably not going to make everyone here over-the-moon happy, we all want different things out of this hook. Let's try to find a compromise anyway. We're all on the same team, and this doesn't need to be a microcosm of a larger quasi-ideological debate—it's no big deal, okay? (also, considering a few different factors I think were left out, I have very different assessments various viewcounts—but again, no big deal. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- also, re
don't see any convincing ref for it (not reading French, sorry)
—whatever happened to assuming good faith on foreign-language sources? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)- I trust them but only wanted to say that I can't find them myself. I find any hook only mentioning some quantity of whatever totally boring, but I may be the only one. Last word. (More detailed thoughts about the matter in SL93's talk page archive. SL93 was praised for an instructional, educational hook, and that's what is missing for 3000 Carmens, imho, and I said so.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I am aware that the 3,000 performances part has sourcing issues and I had already asked Ipigott to address it. For what it's worth, they have confirmed that the relevant part is indeed cited to the French source (specifically, the part in question goes "...notamment celui de Carmen, qu'elle a chanté près de trois mille fois avec le succès le plus éclatant.") In any case, Ipigott has addressed the referencing issue while I was making this reply, so ALT1 should no longer have any sourcing issues. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- It looks like you missed that it has no ref following the sentence, and I don't see any convincing ref for it (not reading French, sorry). If you still want the quantity bragging please provide a ref. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- There is some consensus here that the Déjanire hooks do not meet the "interesting to a broad audience" criterion and are now struck. Either the 3,000 performances sourcing issue needs to be addressed so it can be used or a completely new direction is needed here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Would a compromise hook combining ALT1 and ALT2 work out? Something like:
- ALT3 ... that Germaine Bailac (pictured), who was described as being one of the most competent contraltos after her 1907 debut, went on to play the title role in Bizet's Carmen at least 3,000 times?
- ALT3a ... that Germaine Bailac (pictured), described as being one of the most competent in her vocal range after her 1907 debut, went on to play the title role in Bizet's Carmen at least 3,000 times?
- It combines both the number of performances (a fact that may interest even non-classical music fans) and praise for her career (which should satisfy the desire to give her career justice). I originally thought of mentioning the Phenice role somehow but it would have just made the hook too complicated since it would be difficult to mention both appearing in a last opera and the 3,000 performances fact in the same hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- I crossed out my comment above although it does irritate me when someone says they are dropping a conversation, but clearly don't. I don't think that bringing up on my talk page that Yoninah would've wanted a substantive hook like Gerda's choice was acceptable when consensus was against that hook. I'm trying to get over the situation, but that is my thought process. Anyway, the original image slot in prep 5 is still open for this article if we can get a consensus soon on a hook. SL93 (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Prep 5 is now filled due to it being the next prep for promotion and this discussion stalling despite all participants editing. SL93 (talk) 23:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I've moved this back to DYKN for now—it's a long nomination hanging out at the top of DYKNA. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Echoing what was said above, I like Alt1 and Alt2. --evrik (talk) 03:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree, but on the assumption that we're not going to promote a hook over gerda's wishes, we should probably move on... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- I said I don't care, weeks ago, and unwatched, so see this by chance. It's not my wish, but my argument that a mere high number is not describing this accomplished performer well, but if that is of no importance to you, get this going. I'm not watching, still. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
In my judgement, there is no value to seeing this nomination through to the possible finish line. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:44, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- I said I don't care, weeks ago, and unwatched, so see this by chance. It's not my wish, but my argument that a mere high number is not describing this accomplished performer well, but if that is of no importance to you, get this going. I'm not watching, still. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree, but on the assumption that we're not going to promote a hook over gerda's wishes, we should probably move on... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
