The Bartered Bride is one of the sunniest operas, composed by one of the saddest of men. Please listen to the soundfile; you may want to hear more. The article has been a labour of love, which I hope does the work justice. Brianboulton (talk) 13:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Support: I participated in the peer review of this article, which was already very fine. If anything, it has become even finer. The quality of writing and research is extremely high, and the writer's enthusiasm for his subject makes this an enjoyable read. It fully deserves to be promoted to FA status. Jonyungk (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Support: I reviewed this article in a recent peer review and I think it passes the FA criteria. It is very well researched, balanced in content and neutrality, it contains suitable images, the prose is excellent. These aspects make the article fantastic to read. I believe it can be promoted for a FA. Cheers.-- LYKANTROP ✉ 20:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Support. Wow. I wish I could write prose like that. Eubulides (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Support - Indeed, sometimes I don't even run through Brian's articles because he is such a brilliant writer, and when he receives constructive criticism, he takes it and does more. ceranthor 00:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Support. This article is delightful to read and rich in well-documented detail. It offers the general reader an excellent introduction to this opera and pulls together its musical and cultural importance in a few tightly written paragraphs. Deserves to be promoted to FA so it may be more widely read. A fine achievement. Markhh (talk) 06:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Support Brian, the usual accolades apply. Graham ColmTalk 14:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Media review: I have kept an eye on the media for this article since Brian started working on it (even once calling deletion for the sound file and proven wrong on it), and they are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Strong support Peer reviewing this article was rather a disheartening experience, as it was so very good (better than I could do with months of work) - an engaging, beautifully-written, thoroughly-researched read. Definitely an FA. Ricardiana (talk) 02:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Strong support An exemplary article, meticulously referenced and beautifully written with just the right balance between detail and flow. The Reception and performance history section should serve as a model for all opera articles! Importantly, the article is 'scholarly' (in the best sense of the word) but interesting and accessible to the general reader. As usual with Brian's articles, the use of illustrations (both audio and visual) is both apt and attractive. Voceditenore (talk) 08:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment: I am somewhat overwhelmed by the generosity of the above comments, and would just like to mention that the article owes a lot to the rigour of its peer review, to which several of the above commentators made forceful contributions and to whom much credit is due. Brianboulton (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Support Looks well-sourced, well-structured, and the media review a-ok's the media. I'm not an opera guy, but it seems like a FA to me. The ONLY thing I would ask, and you've probably already looked for this, is whether or not there's a cast photo of the original cast to go alongside the "Roles" table. Not very important though, great work! Staxringoldtalkcontribs 13:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I've not seen such a photograph, or any reference to its existence, so I can't oblige here, I'm afraid. Brianboulton (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. (perhaps the only issue that will arise in this FAC!) Dabomb87 (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, and done. (I had fixed this dab in the text, but forgot that the name was also linked in the sources.) Damn! Brianboulton (talk) 22:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Support: Tough I am not saying anything new, this article is a masterpiece. OboeCrack (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Comments Support: Concerns resolved. Very good article, which did its job in raising my interest in the topic. However I feel that the Lead is a little "dry" as it stands, and could use some tweaking to make the article over-all more attractive and readable for users.**Primarily I think there needs to be a new second sentence which emphasises the notability of the subject. Perhaps something along the lines of: "The opera is considered to have made a major contribution towards the development of Czech music."
"It was composed during the period 1863–66, and first performed in a two-act format with spoken dialogue at the Provisional Theatre, Prague, on 30 May 1866."
The date seems a bit of an afterthought as it stands. Might be better as.. It was composed during the period 1863–66, and first performed at the Provisional Theatre, Prague, on 30 May 1866 in a two-act format with spoken dialogue."
"Set in a country village and with realistic characters, it tells the story of true love prevailing, after a late surprise revelation, over the combined efforts of ambitious parents and a scheming marriage broker."
The clause "after a late surprise revelation", adds little, and makes the sentence jerky, and slightly too long to assimilate easily. Why not remove?
"The opera, Smetana's second, was written as part of the composer's quest to create a genre of Czech national opera, which up to that time was represented only by minor, rarely performed works. "
Again this sentence seems dry, since it is long and makes its principal point near the end. I would suggest reordering into two sentences. Something like: "Czech national opera until this time had been represented only by a number of minor, rarely performed works. This opera, Smetana's second, was part of his quest to create a truly Czech operatic genre." Xandar 11:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Your first, second and fourth points are excellent, and I have incorporated them. On the third point, I'm not so sure. The "surprise revelation" is the key moment in the opera; not mentioning it in this one-line summary might detract quite a bit. Would the sentence be less "jerky" if the latter part was amended to: "...it tells the story of how, after a late surprise revelation, true love prevails over the combined efforts of ambitious parents and a scheming marriage broker."? Brianboulton (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes I agree, It works a lot better like that. Since my concerns were relatively minor, and have now been dealt with, I am happy to join in supporting the article for FA. Xandar 03:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Rephrased. Thanks for your support and for these suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 08:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Support this is a wonderful article and I could not find anything to improve on a close reading. It fully meets all the FAC criteria, well done Ruhrfisch><>°° 02:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.