Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Richard Wagner

Archive 1 •

Tannhäuser

Didn't know this project existed - I've just made an attempt to extend, correct and copyedit Tannhäuser (opera) - especially the first section of the article - . --Smerus 19:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You will be most welcome if you like to join and take part in developing it. -- Kleinzach 00:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Greetings! Excellent work on Tannhäuser. I'll add some verification ASAP.--Dogbertd 09:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review of Tristan und Isolde

I think we're getting there with Tristan und Isolde. Before I go for external peer review, I'd like to invite comments from this august body of experts. A couple of things jump out immediately, and which I'll try to fix:

• the synopsis has no wikilinks
• still need more verification in some of the sections (Reactions to.. and the Recordings sections, in particular)
• I mean to expand on the bibloigraphy section with some comment on the reason for inclusion of some of these works.

Any other comments for improvement would be gratefully received. I'd like to see T&I become the first opera FA.--Dogbertd 10:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Porgy and Bess beat you to it. Perhaps the first incontrovertible opera FA. --Alexs letterbox 12:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll look it over. Although I don't really have any substantial Wagner books to hand, I can at least do some copy-editing. From what I've seen of the FA process, be prepared to be disappointed. It's unlikely they'll address any of the actual content, but you'll get lots of minor linguistic quibbling and requests for several thousand citations. In other words, last time I looked, there were way too many Beckmessers there. But maybe I'm being overly pessimistic. --Folantin 08:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Well we can only try. I just thought some input before going for full FA review might be of help. I have a rather large Wagner library: if you think there's anything that needs referencing, let me know and I might be able to find something.--Dogbertd 15:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks really good. I've just done a quick copy-edit. Worth mentioning Wagner's self-quotation in Die Meistersinger (Mein Kind,von Tristan und Isolde kenn' ich ein traurig Stück) or describing T&I's relation to his later operas? Thomas Mann's Tristan? --Folantin 13:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest checking the criteria for good and featured articles and look at some recent candidate assessments. I think the article will need hugely more citations even on quite basic matters of fact which we as Wagnerians all know to be true (Wagner writing the libretto, von Bulow conducting the premiere etc.) to pass. It may also be useful to dig out some more musical illustrations e.g. of the Act 2 non-resolution and Act 3 resolution of the Liebestod music. I think those would count as legitimate uses of musical illustrations within the copyright policy.--Peter cohen 18:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, they certainly like excessive referencing. --Folantin 19:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh another issue with referencing which I've run into with Troilus is that they want page numbers. --Peter cohen 16:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Well Porgy and Bess which was a FA has 21 references, and T&I already has close to this, and I mean to add a few more when I get a mo. So I'm not sure what "excessive" referencing is: I would have thought "sufficient" is what we should aspire to. I would also point out that most of our references do have page numbers.--Dogbertd 08:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Article assessment

Kleinzach has been pondering the question of article assessment, and has suggested to me that I might like to:

• devise a points system for articles falling within the scope of the Opera Project, based on some work I did on operas by Bellini
• pilot this on a subset of articles, the Wagner Project's articles being the easiest to define (and not too numerous)
• also pilot a version of the standard WP assessment criteria which has been modified by Moreschi to make it more suitable for opera topics. This can be found here.

The aim would be to see which method is easier to apply and also to refine both schemes, where necessary, in the light of experience, following discussion here. The results would then be taken to the Opera Project for further discussion before roll-out of one method or the other.

The points system that I've devised is only applicable to articles on operas. Different schemes would need to be developed for people and for other operatic topics (genres, opera houses, opera companies, festivals, opera history, etc.).

Here's what I've come up with for operas (I'm assuming that all articles will at least say "A is an opera by B to a C-language libretto by D, based on the [work] E written by F", and am not allocating points for this):

Elements	Points
Background/history of composition etc	15
Performance history, including recent performance history and creators of roles (the latter will normally appear in the Roles table)	15
Tabulated list of roles	05
Synopsis	10
Notable arias, etc: (preferably embedded in the synopsis)	05
Discussion of music	15
Recordings	10
Illustrations	10
Inline references, notes, sources	15

The points for each element are the most that can be allocated. Elements that are present but brief or incomplete would attract part-scores.

The maximum total points for any article would thus be 100. I'm tentatively suggesting that scores could be translated into the standard WP classification, as follows:

• 0-39: Stub
• 40-69: Start
• 70-89: B
• 90+: A

(Note that GA and FA classes are assessed and awarded independently, so do not figure in the above).

All comments and suggestions for improvement are welcome and should be posted below.

Timescale: I'll be around until Sunday, then busy and/or away for ten days. However, Kleinsach has volunteered to help with assessments, so there won't necessarily be a hiatus. And can I re-emphasise that this is just a pilot. The nitty-gritty of any specific assessment can (indeed should) be discussed here to help with refining the system.

(I'll join the project on a temporary basis while this is going on. On a personal note, I'm not that much of a Wagnerian. There's one opera that I really like and one that I'll be happy never to see again; the rest, such as Tristan, which I have a date with next Monday, I don't mind seeing from time to time. But none of that should affect the assessment experiment.)

--GuillaumeTell 17:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we may need to see worked examples of the scoring. My instinct before a trial marking was that one article I contributed Blond Eckbert should rate as B. If I switched to inline referencing and reworked a couple of other things, it should have a chance to reach GA. However a first pass of marking it myself would go.

• Background: Brief but with the key facts 7.5/15
• Performance History: I think it covers everything 15/15
• Tabulate list of roles: Done 5/5
• Synopsis: Written in detail with the libretto to hand 10/10
• Noted arias: not discussed. Are there any? 0/5
• Discussion of music: Gives information on scoring and refers to comments in reviews but not to academic sources 10/15
• Mentions the one recording and that is original cast and has been broadcast etc. 10
• Illistrations: none 0/10
• Inline references, notes, sources: Does cite sources, but not inline. No notes: 5/15

I make that 62.5 which puts it in the upper range of start. And perhaps some of those full marks are a bit generous.

I suggest lowering the suggested percentages for grades. Also consider some marks for the style and comprehensibility of the article. There are some requirements for that for GA and A rating should imply reaching GA requirements too. --Peter cohen 18:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Peter. I actually did a few worked examples when discussing the exercise with Kleinsach. One was Der Vampyr, more or less all my own work, to which I awarded 40 (Start). Agrippina (opera) got somewhere between 80 and 90 (arguably A) and Orfeo ed Euridice got 75 (it's actually a GA). Sorry, I added up the figures on the backs of envelopes and seem to have thrown them away - but I could probably reconstruct them (and y'all can have a go if you wish!). Lowering the suggested %s is certainly an option.

Your example above reminds me that I should perhaps have said that recent operas like Blond Eckbert are in some respects easier than older works, where, for example, the original cast is often very difficult to track down. For BE and suchlike, performance history, original cast and recordings can be pretty comprehensively dealt with (especially if you have the indexes to Opera magazine to hand, as I do), and I think that noted arias should be scored as 5 if there aren't any, which almost takes you to my figure for B. --GuillaumeTell 20:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

My gut assessment of Vampyr is that it is an obvious Start-class article, but it only gets the bottom mark for that grade. And if O&E is a GA, I'm surprised that it's in the bottom half of your B-range. I would therefore lower the suggested starting point of both those grades. On the other hand, I would argue that Agrippina should have some musical illustrations before it reaches A. Maybe the illustration marks should be broken down into piccies and musical illustrations.

How about these ranges?

• Stub 0-29
• Start 30-59
• B 60-89
• A 90+

I have now looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Article ranking but have to think furtehr on what I think of its contents.--Peter cohen 21:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

We seem to have made a headlong dive into the detail here. Can I take it that everyone is happy about starting an assessment scheme here? If so perhaps we can put up a first draft on the Assessment page? I understand we will have to consider the points system, the ranges and the assessment criteria in relation to each other. IMO it will be easier to fine tune the system when we can see all the elements together. -- Kleinzach 01:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

As there have been no more comments, I've put a copy of the article ranking and the points system on the Wagner Project assessment page. Where do we go from her? Perhaps GuillaumeTell would like to edit it, and then maybe Peter cohen would like to review it again? Would that be a good idea? -- Kleinzach 07:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

GuillaumeTell has said he'll be unavailable for 10 days. Given this assessment scheme is presumably intended to roll out to opera in general, where should we best discuss it? --Peter cohen 09:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No hurry really. Let's wait until he gets back. I think we are a long way from porting this over to the Opera Project. -- Kleinzach 15:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

(Just been encouraged again to comment by Kleinzach.) Whilst I'm not proposing a thorough scientific verification process for the scale, I think it might be useful to pick some articles with varied quality, take some votes on what they should rate as and then go through a marking exercise with the scales. That way we can both check that the results of the scale correspond with how people would rate the article subjectively and have some worked examples in which people get an idea of how to allocate marks out of ten, or whatever, for a particular heading. --Peter cohen 09:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Good. Perhaps you would like to suggest 4 or 5 Wagner articles for us to use as examples? -- Kleinzach 13:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

How about a mix of operas, RW and connected people and performers? Try this for size:

• Parsifal - AFAICT our only good or featured article
• Hans Hotter
• Richard Wagner ex-featured
• Wieland Wagner
• Rienzi

--Peter cohen 14:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'll have a look at them tomorrow. -- Kleinzach 15:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Here are my 'scores':

• Parsifal Quality scale (subjective): A, points system 81=B
• Hans Hotter Quality scale (subjective): Start, points system 29=Stub
• Richard Wagner Quality scale (subjective): A, points system (not available for composers)
• Wieland Wagner Quality scale (subjective): Start, points system (not available for directors)
• Rienzi Quality scale (subjective): Start, points system 34=Stub

It seems the points system is more stringent than the quality scale (subjective rating). Over to you! -- Kleinzach 02:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to reveal my answers a bit at a time. Apart from tyhe dramatic effect, my connection is playing up.

• Parsifal (subjective) A, definitely not FA yet. Missing things which I as an "expert fan" found missing include: The stage directions indicate that Parsifal is actually affected by Amfortas's pain during the Act I grail scene the Mitleid/"suffering with" of the prophecy. The borrowing of the Dresden Amen, doesn't get a mention. Shorter illustrations of mentioned motifs could help.--Peter cohen 12:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Marks:Background/Composition: 14/15
• Performance History: 10/15 Missing current place in repertoire, that it's a regular at Bayreuth, the innovation of the Wieland's Bayreuth '51 production.
• Tabulated roles 5/5
• Synopsis 9/10 Point docked re Act I mitleid above
• Notable arias 2/5: would have expected "Amfortas! Die Wunde", The Good Friday music etc. to be better distinguished in the synopsis.
• Discussion of music 10/15 Audio extracts of named motifs, status of Prelude and GF Music as bleeding chunks would help. Humperdinck's involvement in extended Transformation music because scenery too long. Even indication of length of orchestral preludes and interludes.
• Recordings 9/10. Perhaps mention recordings of prelude and GF music.
• Illustrations 8/10. Shorter muscial illistrations.
• Referencing, sources 11/15. Needs more inline referencing before going for FA. Doesn't use Grove. I have Lucy Beckett's Cambridge Opera Handbook and the ENO Opera guide and might look through them for other infos. I'm pretty sure that Beckett talks about how Christ is not named and views there as being pagan elements in the opera.
• Total 78/100

Three points difference in our total marks is within acceptable margin of error. What strikes me on this pass is that actually discussion on the significance of the text and its significance iss a vital ingredient for Wagner operas that isn't in our markign scheme.

Previously missing from the big list of projects

I've added us to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Culture under opera. --Peter cohen 18:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)