Wikipedia:Peer review/Bayreuth canon/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bayreuth canon[edit]

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I should look like some feedback before going for Featured List status. It has a referenced table of what I consider the key data about the works concerned in the context of the canon. The lede provides a summary which I think contains all the appropriate content, any more details belonging either in a history of the Bayreuth Festival or in an article on Wagner or the development of his operatic style. However, I've never nominated featured content myself and therefore should like feedback on anything that I'm missing.

Thanks, Peter cohen (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: A very interesting list, to me at least, but Peter, aren't you being a mite diffident about your experience of the featured process? You co-nommed Rhinemaidens at FAC 18 months ago and helped a lot in getting it through. FLC is slightly different territory, and I've much less experience there, but I believe the criteria are essentially the same, even if it's mainly different reviewers applying them. Here are some suggestions for attenton:-

  • File:Bayreuthfest.jpg: What is the source of this image? We require details of its original publication before 1923, support for the statement that it is an 1882 photograph and, if possible, the name of the photographer.
    • I've tried google image and have identified one copy that seems to be sourced independently of us. It confirms year but does not provide date of publication. I may substitute another picture.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now replaced with appropriately licensed picture.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Richard and Cosima Wagner.jpg: I think the correct licence is PD-US not PD-old, and as with the above we need full details of original publication, date etc.
    • On this at least there is pre-1923 publication in the source on Gutenberg.
    • Have now identified creator as Fritz Luckhardt who died in 1894. So PD-old is fine. Info added on Commons.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presentation: I believe that the appearance of the list would be much improved if all dates were centred in their columns. This is a tiresome procedure I know, but generally worth it from a presentational point of view, which is a fairly important FL consideration.
  • One of the columns is headed "Most recent Bayreuth performance". As the information in this column is given in years, I think "Most recent Bayreuth season" might be preferable. I assume the intention is to update this column after each season; even so you should specify in the column heading the date to which the information is complete, e.g. "Most recent Bayreuth season (to 2009)" A similar date indicator needs to be added to the "Total" column header.
  • As the information is obviously available to you, why not put the actual dates of each opera's first Bayreuth performance, e.g. Das Rheingold, 13 August 1876 etc?
    • Actually that isn't the case. The five premieres under Wagner himself are well documented, those under Cosima aren't. I've posted at WP:Wagner to see if someone had a reference exact dates for the five works that Cosima introduced. No one has yet replied. I've got access to the archive of The Times but they only covered a critic to three of the relevant five festivals. For one of these there a definite date can be calculated; for two probable dates can be. (See notes at User:Peter cohen/sandbox2.) Until I have exact dates for all 20 premieres, I think it looks better having for none.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think some of the information in the key is a bit over-fussy. For example, in the Opera column, having indicated by a symbol which are the Ring cycle operas, we can surely deduce that those without symbols are not Ring operas, without being told. A similar point applies to the Première column. I also feel that the final column is cluttered with info-notes and colour coding. Most of this information, relating to the special years reserved for a single opera production, could be transferred to the text, with perhaps some indication of the relevant circumstances.
  • A couple of points in relation to the text. First, the statement "The term can therefore also be used as shorthand for those of Wagner's works that form part of the central operatic repertoire" reads like the editor's own judgement as to which of Wagner's works form part of the central operatic repertoire, and sounds POV. Can this judgement be cited to a source? Secondly, I would expect to see in the text some explanation as to why Parsifal has more than twice as many Bayreuth performances as any other opera save Mastersingers. I imagine this has something to do with Cosima's edict that Parsifal could not be performed anywhere else, a rule which more or less held until 1904. Whether or not this is so, the high number of performances in relation to the other operas definitely needs explaining.
  • I would prefer to see a bibliography, in alphabetical order by author, to provide an at-a-glance resumé of the sources. In that case citations could be written, e.g., as "Cooke, p. 132".

That's all I can come up with. I look forward to watching this article's progress, and please let me know when you decide to send it forward. Brianboulton (talk) 16:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

  • PS. Both images require alt text. Also, the toolbox in the top right corner of this review page indicates that there is one disambiguation link that needs fixing. Brianboulton (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disambig fixed. Alt text to be generated.
    • alt now done.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for this. I'll reply individually to points as I process them. As for my one FA, it was you who decided when it was ripe for nomination. That's why I wanted to consult.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments

  • If we can't get all the Bayreuth premiere dates, how's this for a compromise:-
    • Alter the column heading to "Bayreuth première season"
    • Give the actual premiêre dates in the preceding column, i.e. Rheingold 22 September 1869 etc. All the premiere dates can be cited to a single source, e.g. Osborne's The Complete Operas of Wagner.
    • I have now found all dates, unfortunately finding that the date for Tristan you found was wrong. I haven't found another source for Dutchman, so I'll go with the source you founf even tough it is the same people who got Tristan wrong.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dates now entered. I haven't got a single source with all the premieres. If you feel it is important, could you supply or let me know to ask at WP:Wagner.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The source for the premiere dates is Osborne, Charles (1992): The Complete Operas of Wagner, Victor Gollancz, London, ISBN 0-575-05380-1 Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Performance totals: any reasons why these are not centred in their column like everything else?
  • File:Richard and Cosima Wagner should have a link to the appropriate Gutenberg page, and should also give the book's original publisher. The correct licence for an image published before 1923 is PD-US rather than PD-OLD, which is intended for unpublished material.
  • Prose comments
    • re Parsifal, "solely staged there until 1903" is slightly ambiguous; "and staged nowhere else before 1903" would be clearer
    • The sentence beginning "Wagner dubbed the opera..." needs some internal punctuation
    • The word "uniquely" occurs in succesive sentences. The first usage, "uniquely associated with Bayreuth" is a bit dubious; it is associated with Bayreuth more than the other operas, rather than "uniquely". I suggest a rephrase.
      • Removed second usage. I've tried to explain the first better. The cited source (Beckett) says "The stage history of Parsifal is unique: the presentation of no other dramatic work has been so intimately connected with a single theatre." --Peter cohen (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is possible that some reviewers will object to the bullet-point format, and to the preponderance of incomplete sentences.

Brianboulton (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query: You mentioned on my talkpage about taking this to FAC next week. Did you mean FAC or FLC as at the top of this page?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Bayreuth_canon/archive1&oldid=791876751"