Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tosca/archive1

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 00:49, 18 July 2010 [1].

---

Tosca

Tosca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Tosca/archive1

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) Wehwalt (talk) 11:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Tosca is one of the most popular of all operas, and has generated an enormous amount of written and aural material. We have sifted through a great deal of this to produce a comprehensive 6,500-word summary. Particular thanks are due to Voceditenore for her encouragement and many helpful suggestions, and to the work of editors Markhh, 4meter4 and others whose efforts are visible on the talkpage. Elcobbola and Jappalang each gave invaluable advice on images. The soundfiles, being around 100+ years old, are cranky, but where else can you get to hear Caruso sing? Brianboulton (talk) 11:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

As co-nominator, I join in the nomination. The article was in poor shape when we began work. Now it is a concise study of the opera, well illustrated (and we took pains over the images) and very useful for those interested in this popular work. I also would like to thank the talk page "kibbitzers" , as I called them, who have made many constructive suggestions.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: File:BregenzToscaBühnenbild2.JPG is a derivative work and would require permission from the artist to be freely licensed. Austria has freedom of panorama, but, like Germany, it has the requirement that the work be permanently installed to be applicable ("...sich bleibend an einem öffentlichen Ort zu befinden"). [2] A set piece for a 2007 production is not a permanent installation. Эlcobbola _talk 12:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Image deleted.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we might have missed out a nuance in commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama#Permanent vs temporary, where it states that "permanent" fixtures are "left in public space for their natural lifetime". The sets are open throughout the production's two years of existence and not reused there or elsewhere.[3] Hence, as pointed out to me by AndreasPraefcke, photos of them should qualify for freedom of panorama. Jappalang (talk) 05:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

So, would it be permissable to reload the picture on that basis? Brianboulton (talk) 11:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Why are we assuming the set piece won't be reused or relocated to a non-public place? See the sculpture example at that Commons link. Эlcobbola _talk 14:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, does the set still exist? And what is their "natural lifetime"? Opera sets are sometimes used for half a century, and used in multiple opera houses.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

In truth, I was perhaps presumptuous in assuming those sets would only be for the performance; I had based my judgment on the size of the sets (they are larger than any opera stage thus far) and the Festival's announcement that the operas were for two seasons. However, after a search just now, the following piece of information should satisfy the question that the sets are only for two years. According to the technical details released by the Bregenz Festival, the stage sets must "be up to two thirds bigger than a normal theatre set in order for it not to be 'swallowed up' by the natural surroundings". Most importantly, "In addition, it must be possible to dispose of the materials used in the set in an environmentally-friendly way at the end of the second season. This is an imperative at the Bregenz Festival. Whatever cannot be reused (e.g. hydraulic parts and motors - but also the metal bars on the bottom of the Floating Stage, for example, come from the Porgy and Bess production) must be disposable in a non-harmful way." So, the sets are to be destroyed at the end of the two seasons; reusable parts would have been broken down into such an extent that they are no longer distinguishable as part of the previous set. Jappalang (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Then you are saying it is usable because it is on public display for most or all of its lifetime?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Basically yes, according to the Commons guidelines. "Lifetime" refers to the existence of the work of art; my reading is that if the work of art is installed at a spot, and has existed or is meant to exist there until its end as a piece of art, the art shall be considered "permanently installed". Jappalang (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Does Elcobbola concur? Brianboulton (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That "bleibend" (permanently) refers to the natural lifetime of the work was never in question and I was perhaps remiss in not precisely articulating my concern initially. The paragraph Jappalang quotes speaks to environmental issues (i.e. recyclability and use of non-synthetic/treated components) which become relevant at the time of disposal; it does not, however, address disposal, either in terms of commonality or as a mandate. While unlikely, it is not impossible that it was spared (there exist, for example, alternative theatres of non-standard size in which it could potentially be reused, it may have been relocated for alternative, non-theatrical uses, for "sentimental" reasons, etc.). Simply put, there isn't (yet) what I would consider sufficient support for the notion that this work's lifespan has ended and, absent that support, I think it's irresponsible to claim a free license. Reasonable people could disagree. Эlcobbola _talk 20:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

For example a stage backdrop for a band, showing elements of the album cover, which is only good to be a stage backdrop as long as the band is touring in support of the current CD, but which might be taken home as decoration by someone.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Links check out. ceranthor 14:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments: I've never gotten into opera, but I owe you many favors for all your helpful reviews, so I thought I'd give this a try.

• I'll be honest—knowing nothing about opera made parts of the lead difficult to understand. I had to follow links for "libretto", "Teatro Costanzi", "through-composed", "recitative", and "leitmotifs", while the following sentence was partly beyond me: "Musically, Tosca is structured as a through-composed work, with a continuous lyrical flow rather than an alternation of recitative and set-piece numbers."

This sentence is still a little advanced for a novice reader, but I'm fine with it, especially with the improvements. As you said below, the article should be generally understandable, and I get the general sense.

• Mention of the "1896 version" seems to come out of nowhere. It almost seems like you need to introduce the idea that other versions exist first.
• The information about the differences in the 1896 version assumes the reader is familiar with the play. Since the different acts are summarized below, could the ordering perhaps be better?

I'm not going to strike this item since you are still looking for feedback on it. I will not withhold my support over this issue, though.

• Please link or explain the first instance of "pastiche". Same with "aria".
• I'm not familiar with articles like this and their citation requirements. The synopsis of each act is not cited. Is there any need to cite the script or anything?

No, synopses and plots are exempt from citation, as it is deemed that the work itself is the reference.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• What are "fortissimo chords"? I found a redirect to Dynamics (music), but didn't want to read to find out.
• "buffo" could use a link to Opera buffa (I think).
• I had never seen the word "lugubrious" before... despite several years of college literature. That one might be a bit over-the-top. Thanks for teaching me a new adjective, though!

• I love the word...but you're probably right, it's a bit too strong here. I've altered it to "grumbling". Brianboulton (talk) 10:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• "an almost erotic lyricism that has been called pornophony" – Juicy! This calls for a {{Cquote}} (and translation)! Seriously, though, I don't know how feasible it is, but sample lyrics and translations might be cool. But again, I don't know what to expect in an article like this.

• The words are as quoted by Fisher, and I would say that their sense is pretty clear, even though "pornophony" is a made-up word. He is referring to the music, not the words, so translations don't apply. We could trim the quote, but that would I think be a shame. Brianboulton (talk) 10:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't asking you to change the text, so no trimming is needed. I got the impression that the music (with lyrics) was "pornophonic". Since the lyrics are not, the request is moot. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• "middle C" is linked, but "B flat" is not. Likewise, "horns" is linked in Music: Act 3, but "organ" and "bells" are not in Music: Act 1.

I see your point, that perhaps all or none should be. I've linked to [[organ {music)]] but I think that "bells" should remain unlinked. People know what a bell is.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• "peroration" – had to look this one up, too... sadly

The article appears to be very thorough and well-written. The language was sometimes beyond me, especially when talking about music and style. I don't mean to criticize the language. I know that I never would have come to this page on my own (since I lack any knowledge of opera), and I have no doubt that an opera enthusiast would follow along just fine. Aside from a few clarifications that could help people like me read the article, I'm pretty happy with it. In fact, I may have to go see this one someday. I particularly like how you were able to include audio in the article. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Tosca is a very accessible opera for a first timer, and, importantly, the acts are all short. I have worked through a number of these and am leaving the ones involving musical terms for Brian. Brian and I will have to discuss your comment about the order of the section, stay tuned. Thanks for the comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I've made a few more tweaks and clarifications. I suppose that, for a non-opera, non-music person, this is a bit like me reviewing a biological article – I don't expect to understand all the terms, but I hope to get the general sense. Please say if you think further clarifications or links are required, especially in regard to musical terms. Brianboulton (talk) 10:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Brian. While I believe we have made efforts, sparked by Visionholder, to make this accessible to everyone, a minimal knowledge of opera, and some of musical terminology, may be needed for the fullest appreciation. Appropriate linking, as suggested by Visionholder, is the best course, and I think we've done that. At least for now, we're going to leave the synopsis where it is, but further feedback on this point would be very welcome.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes. I'm changing to support as a result. To quote Brian, "I don't expect to understand all the terms, but I hope to get the general sense." That is certainly true of this article. I just found it ironic given the typical comments on the biological articles and that I've raised the issue of reading levels at WT:FAC. Technically, the article goes against WP:NOT PAPER, which states: "While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text." However, the general meaning can be inferred, which sufficient for me. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Support I peer-reviewed the article, which was already in very good shape by then. It is still better now, and in my opinion satisfies all the FA criteria. The points made by Visionholder are interesting; I have tried to re-read the article from an operatic newcomer's point of view, and I think Brianboulton's analogy, above, about a layman reading a biology article makes the point well. Strangely, the Manual of Style seems to be silent on this subject; I'd say there is a via media between the over-technical and the ultra-simplified, and I think this article gets that balance right. One tiny query: under "Critical reception" you use the word "palatte", which I think should be "palette" but it is in a quote, so I haven't presumed to alter it. - Tim riley (talk) 11:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and the peer review. "Palatte" was a typo, unfortunately, or I could have put in a {sic}. Brianboulton (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• ''set in Rome in June 1800, with Neapolitan rule of Rome threatened... — I don't much care for this, Rome repeated and meaning obfuscated. Something like set in Rome in June 1800, with the rule of the city by Naples threatened... perhaps?
• Floria Tosca in the play is Sarah Bernhardt playing herself — I can't get any sense from this at all. How can she be playing herself and Tosca?

I've adopted your suggestion more or less for the first, though stating "Kingdom of Naples" rather than "Naples", and have rephrased the Bernhardt description. Hope that helps. I've also added the google books link and because many outside the US can't access that, I've done a hidden comment with the exact quote regarding Bernhardt and Floria Tosca.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• No other issues, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Source comments: A couple of very minor nit-picks:
  • Currents refs 5 & 12 have a full-stop after the page number; should be consistent with the others that don't have a full-stop
  • Current ref 40 lacks a retrieval date
  • AmadeusOnline is in Italian. Should be mentioned in the ref. Also, just out of curiosity, what makes AmadeusOnline a reliable source?

AmadeusOnline is the website for a well-known Italian classical music print magazine, Amadeus. I've found the Almanac quite reliable. There are occasional errors, but even Grove has them, and it often has production details not present in more general reference books. See the bottom of this page for the sources used to compile the almanac and the CV of its compiler, Gherardo Casaglia. Voceditenore (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• • • Thanks for the information. The page wasn't loading well for me (a browser problem that's taken much to the day to resolve) so wasn't entirely certain.
  • Fisher, Burton has a full-stop after the editor (ed.) but Burton, Deborah and Greenfield, Edward don't (eds). Should be consistent.

That's all. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I've done the small fixes. I concur with Voceditenore's view about Amadeus, especially in view of its impressive sources. On your last point, when there is more than one editor I think it is customary to write "eds" rather then "eds."; I base this on my endless perusals of bibliographies over the years. Brianboulton (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Fair enough. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support Comments Comments all resolved. Nice article; I have made a few language edits. Other points:
• "the Kingdom of Naples's rule of Rome" - don't think this is right. Il Papa was surely still in charge, though Naples was their traditional ally; "occupation" perhaps.

Actually, at that time there was no Pope. The Roman Republic (a client state of France) had booted out the Pope and ruled Rome. The Pope died on his way to exile and no new Pope was elected until after the play takes place. When the French withdrew and the Republic fell in 1799, Naples took control of the city. King Ferdinand of Naples appointed his trusty general, Diego Naselli, Governor of Rome (he appears as a character in Sardou's play, but not the opera). All of Naselli's orders were signed by him in the name of King Ferdinand. Naples claimed it was "taking care" of the Roman states until the Papacy returned. But I would say that yes, effectively Rome was ruled by the Kingdom of Naples during the period in which the opera/play takes place. Voceditenore (talk) 06:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, but Naples "claim" was a fair one, no? "rule" suggests a permanent situation which this was not. Johnbod (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see Naples leaving Rome except that Marengo had made its position there untenable. I think the word can stand. The Neapolitans had no plans to leave.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

@Johnbod: The K of N role in Rome was more than a mere occupation. It was basically a regency. Perhaps a reasonable alternative would be:

"with the Kingdom of Naples's control over Rome threatened by Napoleon's invasion of Italy." – Voceditenore (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

"Control" would be fine. Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Done Johnbod (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• I know what you mean but "The transition of Tosca from wordy French play to succinct Italian opera..." reads oddly.

How about ... "Turning a wordy French play into a succinct Italian opera took four years, during which the composer..." There's no need to repeat the name of the opera, given the context. But the use of the word succinct seems fine. Voceditenore (talk) 08:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I've adopted Voceditenore's suggestion, slightly modified.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Alt text "Front cover decorated by a rose tree branch..." - roses are not trees.

Done. Johnbod (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Do we have the Italian (or French?) for "busting his balls"?

Puccini quote in Italian: "Mi rompo i coglioni. Sto sempre o quasi in casa a lavorare. «Tosca» è di una difficoltà immensa." ("I'm breaking my balls. I'm always or almost always in the house working. «Tosca» is immensely difficult.") see [4]. "Coglioni" is standard Italian slang for testicles. Voceditenore (talk) 07:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd include it, at least in a note. Also at least some of the other quotes. Johnbod (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the one original Italian is enough, we are entitled to rely on our RS translators. I shudder to think had this been required on Khrushchev! However, if there is any individual quote you'd like to make a case for, let me know.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• By the time I got to "In Act 2, when Tosca sings offstage the cantata that celebrates the supposed defeat of Napoleon,..." I began to wonder if it would not be better to have the synopsis first. I know the opera very well, but most will not. Probably more readers who aren't going to read the whole thing want the plot than the adaptation history. Cantata was one of many unlinked terms btw.

Section moved, which I think is better. Still no link. Johnbod (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The link is there. There have been shifts in the text, so that the first mention of "cantata" has shifted, but the link is definitely in place now. Brianboulton (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• "able to mark the final page of the score "[c]ompleted" - surely "able to mark the final page of the score "c[ompleted]"?

This puzzles me. Where does the "completed" come from? The source given says Puccini wrote on the final page of the score: "End of the opera...29 September 1899, 4:15 a.m.". Why not use the exact quote? Voceditenore (talk) 08:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there's a copy of the final page of the autograph score here on page 96. It indeed says what the source above says, although in Italian, and in Puccini's own hand:

"Fine dell'opera, G. Puccini, Torre del Lago, 29 settembre 1899, ore 4:15" (followed by a smudged word which is probably "mattino" (morning))

Voceditenore (talk) 09:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Smoothed out to avoid the direct quote.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

OK Johnbod (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Even then there was work which remained" - a tad awkward.

Rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

OK Johnbod (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• "...Puccini, who ever sought to put local colour in his works, wanted in romanesque dialect." Wouldn't "always" do for "ever". I don't think "romanesque" used for this in English - best left in Italian. Well I see it is still sometimes used in modern works, but about equally for the Romansh language of Switzerland & Baden-W.

I found this very odd too. Much better to use Romanesco, it's what's used in English language books about Italian dialects. Or simply "Roman dialect". That saves the reader having to click on the link to find out what the heck you're talking about, but the link is available if they want to learn more about the dialect itself. Voceditenore (talk) 07:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Updated Voceditenore (talk) 09:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I've piped to "Roman dialect" per Voceditenore's suggestion.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

OK Johnbod (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Act 1: perhaps needs to be explained earlier that the Magdalene (not linked!) is a portrait of the Marchesa. Nor is it strictly a "portrait" of the Magdalene.

Agree, "portrait" isn't used in the context of a painting of a saint. It's not a portrait of the Marchesa Attavanti either. Cavaradossi was simply inspired to portray Mary Magdalen that way when he had seen the Marchesa in the church leaving the key and clothes for Angellotti the day before, although at the time Cavaradossi didn't know who she was. He learns the identity of the mysterious blonde woman later in the act after Tosca leaves and Angelotti emerges from the chapel again. Some explanation of this (obviously more succinct than mine) would be good. Voceditenore (talk) 08:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to "portrait" and added a brief line of further explanation in the plot summary. Brianboulton (talk) 10:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Done Johnbod (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Act 2: "come Palmieri" could be added.

"Added" in what sense? Brianboulton (talk) 10:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I think he means the bit where Scarpia tells Spoletta to do a mock execution but stresses "Come facemmo col Conte Palmieri" ("Like we did with Count Palmieri"). He repeats this and asks Spoletta if he understands. This was a coded message to fool Tosca, since Count Palmieri had been shot dead with real bullets and Spoletta knew that. For people who don't know the opera, it might be a bit puzzling why what appear to be clear orders from Scarpia for a mock execution were disregarded. This is a lot clearer in the play when Spoletta explains to Tosca why they had used real bullets. Voceditenore (talk) 10:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Updated: Voceditenore (talk) 11:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Understood, line added. Brianboulton (talk) 12:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Charles Osbourne was linked twice; 2nd removed. But he is now a "musical writer" on his 2nd appearance, & unannounced on his 1st.

"Musical writer" is ambiguous and slightly weird. It implies that he's "a writer who is musical" or "a writer of musicals". How about "music critic" which is how the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Music describes him? Voceditenore (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

OK; I had altered this to "music writer", but we'll go with the ODM. Brianboulton (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Done Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• More links needed: Buffo - lkd 2nd time not 1st, gavotte, Job, andante?, there must be a lk for "the pre-microphone acoustic process"
• You will find at least 3 of the arias in Category:Arias by Giacomo Puccini - none are linked!

Johnbod (talk) 02:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, added to list, so youy can get the lyrics as you listen. Johnbod (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for the comments and suggestions. I have dealt with the missing links, and will look for more, and have made minor fixes as suggested. I've included the Job link, though this is in a quotation and thus might be questioned. I have, as noted, amended the plot summary. As to your other points, I would prefer Wehwalt to comment first, as he primarily dealt with background and history sections. Brianboulton (talk) 10:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we have an adequate number of links now, and I have linked the three best known arias. We are conferring on a couple of issues which you have raised.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Generally this reads well and the level of illustration is excellent.

• I too think that the article could do with a little more linking/explanation for the opera-naive reader. I'm probably more knowledgeable about the opera than some readers (I've seen it staged, for a start), but I still kept coming across terms that I didn't understand the precise meaning of in the operatic context.
• In the lead through-composed (whose article is pretty confusing) needs a better explanation.

I think it has it, now. Brianboulton (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Why is the info box about the composer, not the opera?

It's a navigation box to other operas by the same composer, not an infobox about the composer. They're standard on opera articles and appear in all FA opera articles, e.g. The Bartered Bride, L'incoronazione di Poppea, etc.. Voceditenore (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I still think this an odd choice, but I guess it's been extensively debated before.

• I think the lead could do with slightly more on the critical reception. The "shabby little shocker" comment, perhaps?

• In premiere: "had originated multiple Verdi roles" reads oddly (originated usually means written).

It seems a common enough term.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• State Mugnone chosen as conductor in first paragraph.

• Subsequent productions: "Before then the opera had been seen in Spain, Portugal, Germany and Greece, and further afield in Central and South America." bit clumsy -- either state performances in order, or just say something like "it was also performed in... by [date]".

The dates are not particularly relevant, and would cause information clutter. The purpose of this and the next sentence was merely to indicate that the opera was widely performed, with examples given of a few world-wide venues. I have conflated the two sentences into a shorter, less detailed version. Brianboulton (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Avoid confusion by referring to opera houses by different names (eg the Met, Covent Garden).

I still think this has the potential to reduce the article's comprehension among non-opera goers. Perhaps Covent Garden could be linked to Royal Opera House, but I think the Met should be given at least as the Metropolitan.

• Who is Gigli?
• "(still using the name Maria Kalogeropoúlou)" -- do you need this? The section is very name heavy.

Gigli explained, problem like Maria axed.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• In what sense can a production continue for >40 years? What's the difference between production and staging?

A production remains in use if the scenery, costumes and actions of the players remain essentially unchanged. Forty years is an exceptionally long period in the modern era, but Cosima Wagner kept Richard's productions at Bayreuth for as long, or longer. There's no difference between the terms "production" and "staging", I just wanted to avoid a clumsy repetition. Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Critical reception: "it was the second-most performed opera in North America in 2008–2009" -- which was the first?

It is now in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Music/General style -- Most of this is reasonably clear, but I couldn't follow the first few sentences of the first paragraph. What's the difference between aria and number? Is a set-piece aria different from an aria? What's a typical classic form opera? I'd definitely suggest courtesy re-linking of terms here. Could you explain semi-buffo as "comic"?

I have simplified the paragraph. Can you point out any other terms which you think require links? An aria is one type of vocal number; others are duets, ensembles, choruses etc, but it would be cumbersome to say all that, hence "arias and other set-piece vocal numbers". Brianboulton (talk) 21:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I have made some minor edits to this paragraph and repeated some wikilinks. Is there a simple article that could be linked to explain what you mean by "the classic form of opera structure", or could you give a typical example?

I can't think of a suitable linked article - the article on Opera is far too general. I have rewritten the sentence to explain what I mean, but perhaps the word "classic" is misleading, so I am altering it to "traditional". Brianboulton (talk)

• Act 1: link "then unpublished Mass of 1880". What are harmonic oscillations?
  • I have removed the Budden quote relating to harmonic oscillation, as somewhat over-technical and not of great significance. Brianboulton (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
• Act 3: what is Transformation Music?

I've put in an explanation of the transformation music, however, there is no article on this or the Italian Wikipedia regarding the mass. We could put in a red link, if you desire.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

In fact, there is a WP article: Messa (Puccini). I have included the link. Brianboulton (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Photos of Te Deum, crucifix scene & execution could do with more explanation (when performed by whom?).

• They are all of early (pre-1914) performances at the Met. I will add a little to the captions. Brianboulton (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Espresso Addict (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for these comments. The co-noms are presently in discussion concerning responses to earlier comments, but will get to yours shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I have responded to some of the above, and Wehwalt has handled others. He may have more to say, but I think I'm through. Brianboulton (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Not particularly. I think we got everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

There's just a few minor issues remaining that have been overlooked. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I see. I'll look at them, but most likely Brian will answer them as better versed in the technicalities of music.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The only unstruck comment I could find related to the names of opera houses. I think these are now clarified in the text. Can you please indicate if all your concerns are now adequately addressed? Thank you again for your detailed interest. Brianboulton (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

After some discussion, we've moved the plot higher in the article, since we have had a couple of comments there. It's a bit different from some of the opera articles, but every article has its idiosyncrasies, and I think it works well here. Johnbod may wish to take note and leave feedback, perhaps here or better yet, on the article talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

With that, I think we are caught up on everyone's comments. If not, it might be wise to post below.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to thank Johnbod for his comments and his patience in dealing with us, and for his support, which is now the fourth, with no opposes. As I've indicated, if there are any unresolved issues, please feel free to post and we will be glad to oblige.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I add my thanks, too, for a thorough job. Brianboulton (talk) 23:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Note, there is inconsistency throughout in WP:ITALICS; foreign phrase should be italicized, and some operas are in italics, others not. Also, please check spacing on WP:ELLIPSES. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I've straightened out the ellipses and am proceeding on the italics.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.