Talk:Saul (Handel)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Classical music
WikiProject icon Saul (Handel) is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
 

GA Review[edit]

Toolbox

See WP:DEADREF
for dead URLs

This review is transcluded from Talk:Saul (Handel)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 14:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC) I'll take this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I had prepared a very long and detailed review on a piece of paper which eludes me as of the moment. In short I will go through the issues in summary format and spare you the lengthy details. First and foremost, the article fails WP:LEAD. You have to do a copy edit for wording and errors like in "On 5 December 1738 Lady Katherine Knatchbull, a friend and patron of Handel, wrote to her brother-in-law James Harris, who was a writer on music and other subjects, and also a friend of the composer..." and aside from the missing comma and questionable format; drop the attempted explanation of the instrument. Jennens and this "Maggots" matter is just unhelpful. Remove the quote and integrate the meaningful details with paraphrasing. The Roles section needs citations. "List of arias and musical numbers" needs some explanation and possible reformatting, but this may not be on the GA criteria as it meets the layout criteria. Though it is of confusing format and "Reception and performance history" are also in a weird placement. The more modern performances and reception are almost entirely absent. I'd like to see some commentary from "Saul in Story and Tradition" from Carl S. Ehrlich and Marsha C. White. Sorry for it to be so short, but I lost my paper on it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments and your time. I don't want to sound snippy or ungrateful but I cannot agree that Katherine Knatchbull's attempted description of a trombone and the letter from Jennens about Handel's "maggots" should be deleted and/or paraphrased. The "maggots" comment from Jennens is extremely famous in the Handelian literature,one of the very few descriptions of his personality and possibly unique as a record of a working relationship with Handel from a collaborator. I would try and fix the other things to your satisfaction but I am afraid I am not willing to remove those, so is it possible to withdraw the GA nomination? Or you can go ahead and fail it, that's fine, I really wanted comments from a reviewer more than the result as I intend to work on other articles about Handel's works. ThanksSmeat75 (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Just a word of explanation on why I feel Knatchbull's and Jennens' letters are so important to the article - they are both describing instruments they had never seen before even though they were musical connoisseurs- trombones and a carillon, which Handel was introducing in the accompaniment to "Saul". This shows how interested Handel was in exploring new paths in this work, introducing new instruments and sounds to enthral his audience in novel and adventurous ways. That's why I don't care enough about the article achieving GA status to drop those letters. Thanks again for your time and comments.Smeat75 (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, I dug up my review, but I am not going to say that its inclusion merits a failure - everything contentious should have a clear and present reason for being in the article. Now, your description here is exactly what I expect and was looking for and the manner upon which the direct editorializing comes from is an issue with the GA criteria. Though it is not a shot at your writing, it is more that the direction upon which it takes suggests a lecture that is not supported with a third party analysis and draws away from the subject of the play. By all means, the letters may indeed be important, but why sacrifice the meaning and context to have them? If you can't part with it, I'd like some analysis and sourced commentary on it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • It's been awhile. Are you still going to work on this Smeat? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Last chance. Are you still working on it? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)