Talk:Liva Järnefelt

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Liva Järnefelt as Ortrud in 1905

• ... that Liva Järnefelt performed leading roles at the Royal Swedish Opera, such as Ortrud in Wagner's Lohengrin (pictured), and Bizet's Carmen, which she also performed for her 25th anniversary with the company? Source: several
  • Reviewed: Olga Ehrenhaft-Steindler

Created by Ipigott (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 13:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC).

• Including "(pictured)" the hook is over the 200 character limit, while excluding it, the hook is 196 characters long, which is a bit on the long side. Perhaps these hooks could work instead?

ALT1 ... that to celebrate her 25th anniversary as a member of the Royal Swedish Opera, Liva Järnefelt (pictured) performed the title role in Bizet's Carmen?

ALT2 ... that Liva Järnefelt's performance of the title role in Carmen as part of her 25th anniversary with the Royal Swedish Opera was widely acclaimed by critics and audiences?

One issue is that the 25th anniversary part of the article lacks a footnote, so that will need to be resolved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:26, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Are you aware that the pictured thingy is not counted? Say something about Ortrud please when we we have a great image showing Ortrud, on top of being a less-known interesting character which should raise more interest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't care at all about "was widely acclaimed by critics and audiences", - waste of characters, striking that one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I simply noted it because per WP:DYKHOOK, a hook just barely shorter than 200 characters can still be rejected at the discretion of other editors. The hook doesn't need to be about Ortrud, the image itself should raise interest by itself. Besides, the original hook is trying to include too much information instead on focusing on one or two aspects. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

ALT0a: ... that Liva Järnefelt performed leading roles at the Royal Swedish Opera, such as Bizet's Carmen and Ortrud in Wagner's Lohengrin (pictured)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

That is basically a role hook. As in "DYK that this person played this role in this opera?". I actually liked the 25th anniversary angle and I think building up on that would have been a better option than doing a role hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

We will have to disagree what a "role hook" is. "... that Liva Järnefelt performed leading roles at the Royal Swedish Opera" is not a role hook. The roles help the reader to understand how varied her repertoire was, in addition. I also liked the other angle, - it was you who said it was too long. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Is there an issue with the 25th anniversary angle? I gave a suggestion that was much shorter than the original and focused more on the 25th anniversary angle. As a non-opera fan I think the average reader would find it more interesting and surprising that she was part of a prestigious opera company for 25 years rather than her playing roles specifically. Remember that she's an opera performer, so playing roles is part of her job. It would be like having a DYK hook like "DYK ... that Tom Kenny performed major roles for various cartoons such as SpongeBob SquarePants as well as the mayor in The Powerpuff Girls?" As talented as Kenny is and how popular his roles are, a hook solely about him playing said roles wouldn't really be a good hook. On the other hand, a better hook about him would be something like "DYK ... that Tom Kenny got the voice of SpongeBob SquarePants from a minor character he played in Rocko's Modern Life?" Basically, what I mean is that hooks mainly focusing on roles alone rarely work, there has to be some additional context to them that makes this particular performance special. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:28, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

ALT0b: ... that Liva Järnefelt appeared in leading roles such as Ortrud in Wagner's Lohengrin (pictured), and Bizet's Carmen, performed for her 25th anniversary with the Royal Swedish Opera? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:17, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

That's just a rewording of the original hook and doesn't solve the concerns I had with the original. Can you just drop Ortrud from the hook and just focus on Carmen and the 25th anniversary angle? It's not a good idea to include too much information in a hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

No. The image is worth showing, and has an outfit and expression that doesn't match Carmen at all. We can go for having both, - showing how broad her repertoire is - or for no image, which I don't desire, because the image is too good.

ALT0c: ... that Liva Järnefelt appeared in leading roles such as Wagner's Ortrud (pictured) and Bizet's Carmen, performed for her 25th anniversary with the Royal Swedish Opera? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

The wordings you provided are still essentially role hooks in that they largely have the idea of "did you know that this person played this role?". Personally I don't think the mention of Ortrud is really that necessary and if there's a desire to mention that role, it's already mentioned in the image caption anyway. Plus, there's no guarantee that the image will be promoted anyway, so the nomination needs to be prepared for that possibility. Having said that, as possible compromises, could the following wordings work? They move away from plain "DYK that this person played this role" language and instead emphasize the 25th anniversary more, while still mentioning both Ortrud and Carmen:

ALT1a ... that to celebrate her 25th anniversary as a member of the Royal Swedish Opera, Liva Järnefelt, known for Wagnerian roles such as Ortrud in Lohengrin (pictured), played the title role in Bizet's Carmen?

ALT1b ... that to celebrate her 25th anniversary as a member of the Royal Swedish Opera, Liva Järnefelt (role as Ortrud pictured) performed the title role in Bizet's Carmen?

These proposals are still somewhat about her performing roles, although in this case the focus in on the 25th anniversary part rather than strictly her performing a role. As I mentioned earlier, I think non-opera fans would find her 25 years as a member of the opera company more interesting than her playing a Wagnerian role that you yourself admit to be obscure. In any case, both of these proposals still mention Ortrud, so if your goal is to mention that role, then these wordings accomplish that. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

The original hook - as said how many times? - says that she is a leading singer of the Royal Swedish Opera. We can stop there if you are afraid of additional precision about what kind of voice, what kind of roles. It was never a "role hook". - Our prep builders known an excellent image when they see one. - I'm out for the day. As said how many times, see you tomorrow, but only after I finished the latest Recen death article. I made progress but there are still refs missing.

Reviewer supplied hooks. I think ALT1a is misleading because she is not especially known for Wagner, as it makes me think when I read it. Reviewer: you don't need to read all the small print, just the article and the hooks. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, according to a discussion at WT:DYK, a new review is needed only if the original reviewer proposed a hook or hooks which introduced new hook facts. If the reviewer proposed new hooks that were simply rewordings or shortenings of existing hooks, a new reviewer is not needed. In any case, per the above comment, I'm proposing below a more accurate version of ALT1a and have struck the original:

ALT1c ... that to celebrate her 25th anniversary as a member of the Royal Swedish Opera, Liva Järnefelt, who has portrayed Wagnerian roles such as Ortrud in Lohengrin (pictured), performed the title role in Bizet's Carmen?

Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:36, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

In this case, while you didn't introduce new facts, you introduced new grammar and wording, so an independent reviewer might be a good idea even if not "needed". I can tell you (again) that opera singers don't "play" their characters, - you might say "performed as", or "portrayed", or "appeared as", or - if the world premiere - "created the role of". Hope that helps in the future. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have changed "played" to "performed". I would strongly advise against "created" as that is considered jargon and may not be understood by non-specialists (to laypeople, "created the role" would have the [unintended] meaning of them literally being the creators of the role, rather than merely being the original performers). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the change. "create the role" is not jargon, but the professional way (or technical term) to say that someone performed a role in public the very first time (and much shorter). There are technical terms in sports/cooking/biology ... that are acceptable, - why not opera? In this cas, however, she didn't create the roles mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

There's probably a language barrier issue here, but the problem with the term "created the role" is that laypeople know a completely different meaning from opera enthusiasts, and insisting on the technical meaning could lead to confusion. For example, the statement "Stephen Hillenburg created the character SpongeBob SquarePants" means that Hillenburg was the one who came up with the idea of the character SpongeBob. It doesn't mean that Hillenburg was the first one to portray the character and indeed the latter interpretation is wrong. Indeed WP:JARGON discourages the use of technical terms when they could cause confusion or otherwise may not be understood by non-specialists. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

In other words, you suggest to be clumsy and explain in wordiness what someone really interested in the topic would understand without it (but you would possibly not request the same for some sports term I'd not understand)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/DYK Archive has the phrase "created the role" 24 times, and the phrase "created the title role" 7 times, beginning in 2011, to my knowledge without any problems except raised by you. As in most of these cases the composer will also be mentioned, there could be no misunderstanding, imho. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't the first person to raise the issue with "created the role", it's been brought up in DYK's talk page in the past. In addition, what WP:OPERA does doesn't necessarily apply to the whole encyclopedia: their standards are merely WP:LOCALCONSENSUS while WP:JARGON is a Wikipedia-wide guideline, and thus WP:JARGON is what prevails. It may be fine to use that term when discussing with fellow opera specialists, but DYK is intended for a general audience and so hooks and articles intended for broader audiences need to follow Wikipedia-wide guidelines, not local consensus. Indeed, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS gives the following quote: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

You teach me to simply avoid role creations, although they are interesting material. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Thank you for a decent biographical article and a jolly good picture. Notwithstanding the above discussion, no proper review has yet been done, so I am doing it. That includes reviewing all of those hooks which (as of 26 May 2022) are not yet struck out:

• ALT0: Citation 4 (using Google Translate). This is fine. I confirm (as mentioned above) that without (pictured) the character count is 196, but 196 characters is not against the rules. The reviewer-discretion option is there to allow the use of common sense, for example when unnecessary wordage is used to express a simple matter (e.g. "plays a horrible wicked baddie in the film" instead of "plays a villain").
• ALT1: ditto (struck because it does not mention Ortrud)
• ALT0a: ditto
• ALT0b: ditto
• ALT0c: ditto
• ALT1b: Google's translation of citation 4 does not retain the meaning that she specially sang Carmen in order to celebrate the anniversary. The translation reads that she received a good reception for both Carmen and her anniversary at the same time. However that is just a robot-translation which cannot relay the finer points, so I take this one in good faith.
• ALT1c: Same comment as ALT1b.

Conclusion on hooks: All the hooks which I have reviewed are within the DYK rules and are easily understood by most readers. @Gerda Arendt: I was obliged to review all remaining unstruck hooks, so please would you now kindly strike out any remaining hooks that you don't agree with, so that we can see where we are?

The picture: To promoter: please would you kindly promote this one with the image, because (1) it is very striking, and may well pull in extra clicks, and (2) all the hooks are better understood if you can see the magnificent character that the hook is referring to. Storye book (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I won't strike, just say that I like the original best, and don't like any not mentioning Ortrud. If the image was some neutral pose in costume, I wouldn't mind just mentioning "pictured in costume", but this one has expression that matches Ortrud, and not at all Carmen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda Arendt.

Good to go, taking the Swedish citations AGF, with ALT0 preferred - with picture, please. Storye book (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Actress categories?

Are the use of actress categories appropriate? Typically we don't include opera singers in acting categories unless they have also worked in stage plays or musicals, film, etc. Of course, opera does involve acting so I am not opposed to the idea on principal; it's just not how opera singer articles are currently organized in the category system across the encyclopedia.4meter4 (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)