Talk:Dido and Aeneas/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
As an article on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps list, I am reviewing this article. And from the looks of its current state, it doesn't look like GA material. Here's why:

• Un-referenced sections in the article.

:*The "Media" section needs to be expanded.

:*And the "References in popular culture" should probably be removed.

• Looking at it again, there should be some copyediting and some other stuff like that. GamerPro64 (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

So if these problems aren't fixed in 7 days, I will delist it from its GA status. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've done some cleaning up as you will see. If you have any other specific suggestions please make them. Do not delist without explanation and without informing the Opera Project. You can't delist because of (quote) "some other stuff like that" (unquote). --Kleinzach 03:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I won't delist it because of that. In fact, it might pass with your great work you're doing. I'll say what the "stuff" is tomarrow since I'm reading The Great Gatsby. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Great to hear that someone here reads. Enjoy! --Kleinzach 04:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the requirement to expand the media section. It is unlikely that recordings of adequate quality will be available. --Kleinzach 03:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, can't the recording be moved to somewhere else? It really ruins the article for being the only thing in the section. GamerPro64 (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it. It wasn't really contributing anything to the article. --Kleinzach 01:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It's now been replaced - as an external link! - by another editor. --Kleinzach 00:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I've moved the file (minus the ungainly loudspeaker image) into the synopsis at the point where it is sung. This seems a better solution than adding it as an external link {very odd) or having it in a separate media section. 16:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the "References in popular culture" as trivia. --Kleinzach 07:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• This is just about the worst, most irresponsible GAR I have ever seen. It violates every guideline at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles. Compare it to Talk:Teaneck, New Jersey/GA1 Where does it need copy-editing and why? What parts need references and why? It has multiple inline citations to scholarly sources. It is now one week since GamerPro64 wrote "I'll say what the "stuff" is tomarrow since I'm reading The Great Gatsby" and he/she has still not responded here. I am going to ask someone at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Mentors to review what's going on here. I have asked at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations for someone to review what's going on here. Voceditenore (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Excause me, but I have been waiting for User:Wizardman to give a second opinion for a while. Also, I do not watchlist GARs. I'm sorry about what's been going on, O.K? GamerPro64 (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It is good practice to watch-list articles and review pages. Also it is up to you, the reviewer, to respond to queries from those who are addressing problems you have identified. IT is also helpful to editors to actually specify in detail the problems. If you ask another editor for a second opinion it is useful to mention that on the review page so that everyone knows what is going on. Comments like "Looking at it again, there should be some copyediting and some other stuff like that" aren't particularly useful. Might I suggest that you read WP:Reviewing good articles#Mistakes to avoid in reviews. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• This Stakhanovite approach to article assessment is leading to some farcical absurdities. The whole "GA rating" thing has been hopelessly broken for a very long time, and this is the latest in a long line of the hard work of decent contributors getting shat all over by somebody with no academic background on a power trip. Civility just goes out the window when we are not even given the courtesy of being informed what the supposed problems are. I am not best pleased about this. Moreschi (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Speaking entirely civilly - the article is still not a GA. Regardless of if you think the GA process is broken, the standards are fixed. There are entire paragraphs unreferenced, another paragraphs where "references" are actually notes. you've got approximately 1 cite per kb, which isn't good enough. Ironholds (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course there are entire paragraphs unreferenced. It's called the synopsis. Please tell me why one is supposed to reference each paragraph of the synopsis? Moreschi (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm referring to two sections of the Libretto, a large chunk of the Score and the short line under the "Film" heading. In addition, several sections seem to be entirely missing. Why is there nothing on the performances? The writing process? The critical reception and any impact? Ironholds (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs more on the work's performance history. Such a section is usually included in complete opera articles and material on this is available. I've added references to the "notes" about voice types as they all pertain to the roles table. I've also added further references to the libretto and the former "Film" section. It isn't really a film, but rather a filming of very famous dance version of the opera by Mark Morris, which has been performed live all over the world. Ironholds, can you point out which assertions in the score and libretto sections you think still require referencing? Voceditenore (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the excellent work you've done so far. "It may be considered Purcell's only true opera, as compared with his other musical dramatic works such as King Arthur and The Fairy-Queen, and is among the earliest English operas" needs referencing, as does "This explains the addition of the characters of the Sorceress and the witches, which do not appear in the original Aeneid. It would be noble, or at least acceptable, for Aeneas to follow the decree of the Gods, but not so acceptable for him to be tricked by ill-meaning spirits." and "While the Prologue's music has been lost and has not been reconstructed, several realizations of the opera include a solution to the missing ritornello at the end of the second act. Known to have been part of the score, it is now performed as a dance taken from other, similar works by Purcell, or invented outright in the same vein, to keep the integrity and continuity of the performance.". While this is excellent work, the article is still unsuitable for GA unless a proper expansion is undertaken. Ironholds (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Prose needs fixing, too: "It is a monumental work in the Baroque opera," ... errr. "The difficulty is that no later sources follow the act divisions of the libretto,..." ... um. POV claims. Tony (talk) 07:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The "monumental" has now been referenced. The other assertion can be rephrased and easily referenced. I also think the prose in the synopsis leaves a lot to be desired. Voceditenore (talk)

• Request to GamerPro64: Since you alone will be making the final decision, will you please now read through the article in its present state as well as the recent comments of others here and then clearly list for us the specific issues outstanding? If you want to get someone to help you list the outstanding issues clearly, that's fine by me, but they have to be listed and accepted by you as the criteria you are going to use. I am also requesting that you give us at least one week after you have listed the issues to work on them. In light of your lack of active participation and communication in this review up to now, I think this is only fair to those of us who will now be working on the article. Voceditenore (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I have asked for assistance with listing comments and will list when I get a responce. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

If you haven't got the competence to list your complaints yourself then what are you doing reviewing at all? Moreschi (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all, that's insulting. Secondly, I just want assistance so that there's problems missed. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Moreschi, there's no need to be rude, particularly since you were complaining that civility had gone out of the window on this very page. It is a valid point (GamerPro, in future I'd advise avoiding GARs until you've got a bit more experience on Wikipedia) but presented in a rude fashion. Ironholds (talk) 06:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

GamerPro, as far as I can make out, you asked Wizardman for assistance on January 7th:

"Hey Wizardman, an you look at the writing in Dido and Aeneas? I'm going its GAR and I can't really figure out if there's problems with the wording and stuff like that".

He replied the same day:

"I can take a look tomorrow, though I should note that prose fine-tuning and word choice is my weak spot. That's usually where my problems come on my own written articles.".

Wizardman has made no input here and neither have you. It is now January 15th. Have you asked someone else for help? If not, do you intend to? And will you kindly answer my question concerning an extension of one week — to begin after you have provided a specific listing of what you consider to be the outstanding issues. This GAR, as you have conducted it so far, is discourteous to the editors who are working to improve the article. We at least deserve a properly conducted review. Voceditenore (talk) 08:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I am willing to conduct that review, if GamerPro is alright with that. Ironholds (talk) 11:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be great! It may not pass in the end (there is still much to be done), but at least we'll know clearly what we need to do and can have faith in the final decision. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair does. GamerPro, is that alright with you? If the answer is "yes", I'll start drafting something below about what I feel the flaws are. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 13:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your review below. It's extremely helpful. Although I've only been editing this article since this re-assessment began, I'd like to try to address as many of the issues as I can over the next week and will ask at WikiProject Opera if anyone else is interested in helping. Even if we don't make it all the way to GA, at least the article will have been vastly improved. Once again, many thanks for the work you've put into the review. It's much appreciated. Voceditenore (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem, give me a poke if there are other things you'd like me to look at. Do you want any help with the sources I've highlighted? Ironholds (talk) 14:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I could use help with the Jstor sources. I'll send you an email. Thanks. Voceditenore (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It's unfair to blame GamerPro64 for all this. Look at what is happening at the 'Sweeps'. One individual has

reassessed 590 GAs! GamerPro64 is only doing 14 - but look at the selection, apart from Dido (listed here with pop records!) he's doing:

Near South Side, Chicago, 2007 Bernard Matthews H5N1 outbreak, Dragon Quest VI: Maboroshi no Daichi, Final Fantasy Tactics Advance, Chrono Break, Final Fantasy Chronicles, Fetal alcohol syndrome, Fire Emblem (video game), Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance, Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stones, Geist (video game), Henipavirus, Wizards (film), Renal tubular acidosis.

Is it any wonder he's having difficulties? I think the place to get tough is here. Anyone like to take it on? --Kleinzach 11:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Note:To avoid confusion with actual responses to the issues raised in review, the following comments have been moved here from their original position. Voceditenore (talk) 09:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, finally, some intelligent criticism. What a relief. Moreschi (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Moreschi, do not come to a page, comment about how civility has broken down and then make disparaging and WP:BITEy comments like that; it smacks of hypocricy. Yes, such a new editor should not have undertaken GARs, particularly not 16 at once, but can you not try to asssume some sort of good faith rather than a lack of intelligence or common sense? We're all newbies once. suggesting people buy records from HMV and Amazon? Ooh look, newbishness! But we assume newbishness, not some kind of spamming agenda. Ironholds (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

16 at once? I did those reviews months ago, with Near South Side, Chicago being done a day or two ago. Also, I've been editing for a year, have an article at GA status, and it is currently up for FAC. I am not a newbie. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Really? My apologies. Your approach to GAR and your redlinked username lend the opposite impression; can I suggest perhaps "shadowing" a more experienced reviewer in future? Moreschi, my apologies for the attached comments. Ironholds (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll remember that next time. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

REVIEW

Sourcing

The entire article seems to be based around nine sources, which isn't good enough considering only two are used in any detail. If you have access to JSTOR I advise checking there, because I found a large number of sources early on:

• Michael Steinberg's reviews in Notes (Second Series, Vol. 20, No. 4) (Autumn, 1963), pp. 560-562 covers the score and interpretation by various individuals.
• Verda Bach Evans wrote A Study of Dido and Aeneas in The Classical Journal, Vol. 33, No. 2 (Nov., 1937), pp. 99-104.
• Mark Goldie wrote The Earliest Notice of Purcell's Dido and Aeneas in Early Music, Vol. 20, No. 3 (Aug., 1992), pp. 393-400, which deals with the first performance and what is known about it. In Vol. 22 No. 1, Curtis Price has Dido and Aeneas: Questions of Style and Evidence, which further elaborates on the early performances and style.
• Andrew R. Walkling wrote Political Allegory in Purcell's 'Dido and Aeneas', Music & Letters, Vol. 76, No. 4 (Nov., 1995), pp. 540-571.
• There are dozens more. Give me a poke if you don't have access to these and would like them emailed. Ironholds (talk) 13:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Prose

• "The opera opens with Dido in her court with her attendants. Belinda is trying to cheer up Dido, but Dido is full of sorrow, saying 'Peace and I are strangers grown'." - poor prose. Repetitive use of "her" and "dido".
• "He is at first received coldly" - as opposed to the second, third and fourth times he was received? "He is received coldly", since she can't really receive somebody twice.
• "The witch is plotting the destruction of Carthage and its queen, and calls in her companions to help her in her evil plans." - again, repetition. "her" three times in one sentence? "The witch is plotting to destroy Carthage and its Queen, and calls in her companions to help with the evil plans." would be my suggestion.
• "She plans to send her "trusted elf" disguised as Mercury" - who is Mercury? Why is he or her not mentioned prior to this?
• "the Enchantresses" - who? If this is the Witch's companions, use either "enchantresses" or "companions" every time they appear, don't mix and match the two.
• Again, you've used "witches" "enchantresses" and "companions" to refer to the same people in the same paragraph. Standardise.
• "Dido and Aeneas are accompanied by their train. They stop at the grove to take in its beauty." - "Dido and Aeneas, accompanied by their train, stop at the grove to take in its beauty."
• "prompting Belinda to tell the servants to prepare for a return to shelter as soon as possible" that's 3 "to"s.
• "This pretend Mercury brings the command of Jove that Aeneas is to wait no longer in beginning his task of creating a new Troy on Latin soil." I'd advise exchanging "this pretend mercury" for "the elf".
• The entire plot summary suffers from a lack of context. Why does the witch want to destroy Dido and Carthage? Who exactly is Aenas?
• I'd advise sticking quite a few bluelinks in, which should partially fix the lack of context. Ironholds (talk) 13:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Verifiability

• There are insufficient inline citations for the purpose of verifiability:
  • "While the Prologue's music has been lost and has not been reconstructed, several realizations of the opera include a solution to the missing ritornello at the end of the second act. Known to have been part of the score, it is now performed as a dance taken from other, similar works by Purcell, or invented outright in the same vein, to keep the integrity and continuity of the performance."
  • "The most famous aria of the work is "When I am laid in earth", popularly known as Dido's lament. Both arias are formed on a lamento ground bass. Dido's lament has been performed or recorded even by artists far from the typical operatic school such as Klaus Nomi (as "Death"), Ane Brun and Jeff Buckley. It has also been transcribed or used in many scores, including the soundtrack to HBO miniseries Band of Brothers (renamed Nixon's Walk). It is always played (by a military band) at the Cenotaph remembrance ceremony which takes place on the Sunday nearest to November 11th each year in London's Whitehall."
  • "This explains the addition of the characters of the Sorceress and the witches, which do not appear in the original Aeneid. It would be noble, or at least acceptable, for Aeneas to follow the decree of the Gods, but not so acceptable for him to be tricked by ill-meaning spirits."
  • "Although the opera is a tragedy, there are numerous seemingly lighter scenes, such as he First Sailor's song, "Take a boozy short leave of your nymphs on the shore, and silence their mourning with vows of returning, though never intending to visit them more."" Ironholds (talk) 13:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Coverage

• There are many sections missing which should be here. There is almost nothing on various performances, for example, despite the fact that I have easily found sources on its first performance, and nothing about the writing process. The discography is merely a link elsewhere, and I question the need for a seperate dance heading; could you not simply merge it into "score" or "discography"? It's too short to justify a header.
• There needs to be some coverage of the Opera's critical impact and analysis.
• The discography section should contain something, not just a link elsewhere (incidentally, I recommend using the seealso or mainarticle templates, not a jury-rigged version).
• The lead is completely improper. Leads should summarise articles; yours includes new information not found elsewhere, which is highly confusing to the reader. Ironholds (talk) 13:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Update and suggestion

I and a couple of other editors have been working on this over the last 10 days. Although the article is much improved, there is still a long way to go. I think it is highly unlikely to pass the review in the short-term, and a proper re-vamp of the article can't really be done in the short time constraint available. I suggest de-listing this article and bringing it back for GA assessment once the re-vamp is complete. Once again, I want to thank Ironholds for his invaluable help in providing the detailed commentary we'll need to bring the article up to GA standard. It is much appreciated. Voceditenore (talk) 11:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur, and my thanks both for the compliment, and also for the valuable work you've done over the last few days. Ping me on my talkpage when you bring it up for GAN again, and I will be happy to review it within the day. Ironholds (talk) 12:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)