Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Mozart's operas/archive1

List of Mozart's operas[edit]

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

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review. It is a List, which has been prepared as a concise summary of Mozart's operas, providing an at-a-glance overview of the whole series of works. It has multiple links to enable detailed further investigation, and a brief, referenced text to give some general backgound information about the operas. Comments are requested on the format and overall quality of the list, on the use of footnotes, and on any other relevant aspect. Suggestions for improvement are welcome.

Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MeegsC

For us philistines(!), you should explain what a "Köchel number" is.
- An explanatory footnote, with links, has been added. Brianboulton (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of the dates (for K.344) is not centred.
- Centred now. Brianboulton (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might ask a copy editor for a read-through. For example, in the sentence In general the list follows the sequence in which the operas were written, there should be a comma after general.
- Someone has done/is doing some copyedits, and has inserted your comma. Brianboulton (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Items in the "Sources" section should be put into a standard format (citation or cite book).
- Cite book is a choice of format, not a requisite, per WP:Citing sources. I prefer not to use it. Brianboulton (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like further comments, please ask here! MeegsC | Talk 08:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these comments. Anything more you have to add would be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few more questions/comments:

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's operas comprise 22 musical dramas in a variety of genres. Dramas? Some of the linked articles call their subjects comedies...

Surely the word drama is used here in the sense of a story enacted on a stage (irrespective of whether it is happy or tragic, serious or humorous). It's a standard usage. --Klein zach 09:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I accept that. On a separate note, I think that opening sentence is a bit stilted. "...operas comprise 22 musical dramas... " How about Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart composed 22 operas in a variety of genres.

They range from the small-scale, derivative works of his juvenile years ... Juvenile years sounds odd to the ear. Is youth appropriate? (I realize that, as a child prodigy, he may well have reached maturity while still in his youth.)

Other words would be equally OK. But "juvenilia" is the accepted word for artistes' early work, so my choice seems appropriate.Brianboulton (talk) 14:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to say the same thing, but on reflection 'juvenile years' is different from 'juvenilia' or 'juvenile works'. --Klein zach 14:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's save a word and say "youth". Brianboulton (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...have never been out of the repetory. Whose repertory? I'm assuming the world's, but you might want to be more precise here.

Agreed. We could be more precise . . . "the repertory of the world's opera houses."? --Klein zach 09:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A significant feature of Mozart's later work are... Verb needs to be in agreement, which will probably mean a rewording of this sentence...

I have reworded the start of this para, to give it a better justification for being here. There is a view that it should not be included in a list article. Brianboulton (talk) 13:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the second paragraph, you directly quote several writers without attributing them in the text (though you've cited each one thoroughly). I like how you've done the third paragraph, where you indicate who said the quoted things. Can you do that here too, or put things into your own words so you're not using so many direct quotes? Not a deal-breaker, more a bit of a pet peeve. : )

MeegsC | Talk 09:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the last point, I've introduced Cairns and Kenyon into the paragraph. Brianboulton (talk) 14:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Awadewit

What an important list! Thanks for putting this together! Here are my suggestions for improvement:

I'm wondering if the paragraph on female characters is necessary in the lead. Since this is a list article, only the briefest overview is required. (This is not the article on Mozart's operas, after all.) That paragraph suggests much more detail than the article goes into.
- I wanted to illustrate a consistency in the operas, a unifying theme or factor relevant to the whole body of work, and I thought that Mozart's development of his female characters was the best - and the best-referenced - example of this. I will invite comment from other editors interested in the list. Brianboulton (talk) 11:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first time a scholar or critic is named, he or she needs to be identified as a musicologist or something. Give the reader a reason to trust the person's opinion.
- This is now done. Brianboulton (talk) 11:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious why the seven-year old portrait was chosen - why not an older Mozart? Mozart wrote the bulk of his operas when he was older, did he not?
- Yes, you're right, the portrait is inappropriate. I've changed it for the familiar della Croce detail
Shouldn't the titles of the operas be italicized in the list?
- Yes, they should be, and now are.
It seems strange to write "3 soprano, 2 tenor" rather than "3 sopranos, 2 tenors" - is this typical opera lingo?
- It's not opera lingo, but these descriptions refer to voice types, not to people, i.e. are being used in the adjectival rather than the noun sense (3 soprano voices, 2 tenor voices, etc.)
It would be good if the "Sources" were in a standard reference style, such as MLA, APA, or Chicago. I see the above reviewer recommended templates. I dislike the templates, too, but citing sources in a standard style is helpful to readers. WP:Citing sources has links at the bottom of the page to pages on these standard styles, if you don't want to use the templates.
- I've used the same Sources format here that I have used in numerous featured articles, and which is widely used elsewhere in Wikipedia. In my view, this is a "standard" style provided it is used with complete consistency; I'm not sure why this form is less helpful to readers than others, but I'm prepared to be told. Brianboulton (talk) 11:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia should not invent its own style. I do research nearly every day. It is confusing to come to a reference list and see things arranged in a foreign manner. I saw the punctuation in your list and went "what?" (by the way, the punctuation is not even consistent in the list itself). It also gives the impression that Wikipedia does not know what it is doing when it comes to references. Part of helping Wikipedia gain legitimacy is showing the outside world that we understand how referencing works. Awadewit (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I note what you say, and I respect this viewpoint. However, I do research, too. I see many scholarly bibliographies, outside Wikipedia, formatted in the manner I have used. I am looking at one right now. I am also looking at the bibliography in Neal Zaslaw's book, which is laid out in a non-standard fashion but doesn't cause me confusion. Honestly, I don't think it's a problem, but I will give the matter further thought. Brianboulton (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why are there two "Further reading" sources? Considering all that has been written on Mozart's operas, this tiny selection seems rather arbitrary. I would delete this section and only list the sources you have used or create a real bibliography, listing all of the major works on Mozart's operas.
- I agree that the list is too short. While it would be impractical to list all the major works, a decent listing of half a dozen is certainly possible, and I am working on this. Brianboulton (talk) 11:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments are helpful. Awadewit (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I thank you for these comments, and also for the very useful copyedits, which have certainly improved the text. Brianboulton (talk) 11:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kleinzach

I've removed the 'Further Reading' heading leaving 'Selected bibliography' - I don't think both are needed, though by all mean switch them if you prefer the other one. The list looks excellent now. The only suggestion I have would be to announce the peer review on the Composers Project as they have some editors working intensively on Mozart who don't take part in the opera Project (for example Opus33). --Klein zach 05:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Opus33

Charles Rosen's The Classical Style has quite a bit of commentary on the operas in general and might be a good reference source here. Opus33 (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a listed source. Brianboulton (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]