Talk:Va tacito e nascosto/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Smerus (talk · contribs) 16:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

My comments (taking the criteria for GA in reverse order):

• Image - needs fair use rationale for use in this article (see File:Va tacito e nascosto.jpg).

• Stable - OK

• Neutral - OK

• Broad in coverage - in my opinion, the article fails this criterion at present.
  • I am open to correction on this, but there is not a lot of information on this article - it's really only one level above a stub. (1824 qualifying characters). Does this not make it too slight for a GA?
  • We get something about the aria in the opera, but little or nothing about its context in Handel's oeuvre as a whole, or any broader context.
  • E.g. what about comparing it with Handel's German aria "Die ihr aus dunkeln Grüften" (HWV 208) with a strikingly similar instrumental ritornello and identical prowling beat - David Vickers writes of this and its companion arias that "several ...share musical relationships with material in Giulio Cesare, Tamerlano and Rodelinda", which were written at about the same time.
  • Originality of use of the horn in opera is not clear - the lead says "it represents a very early use", the text says it "may have been a very early example". What other early examples are there of solo horns in opera? - you could refer to one or two.

• Verifiable - some issues here
  • you should state a source for the text and translation. If the translation is not your own it may be copyright. Otherwise seems OK, if you clarify the text as regards the earliness of the horn.
  • "Sometimes referred to as a simile aria" - is that from the source at the end of the paragraph? - as the rest of the para seems to be about the piece's dramatic context. If not it needs a clear source. (E.g. Westrup's article 'Simile aria' in Grove Music Online). Actually there needs to be an article simile aria on WP.

• Well-written - needs a bit of tidying up.
  • E.g. I would make it clear in the lead exactly what sort of a horn this we are tlaking about (not a French horn I understand from the correction of another editor), give some appropriate link there, and try to avoid repetition of the word 'horn' in that and other sections.

• Not strictly relevant to GA, but one criterion of a useful article is the number of articles linking to it. In this case there is presently only one (the opera it comes from). You should seek to make some links (1724 in music, e.g.?)

• Conclusion - needs tidying up and expansion - I don't think I can pass it for GA in its present state. --Smerus (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

2nd opinion?

Hello, Smerus, and hello also to LavaBaron! I have read the article, the GA review, and the talk page discussion below it. I see that you requested a "2nd opinion" four weeks ago. Unlike what is requested in the instructions, this review page does not specify in what way you are looking for a second opinion. Although I can hazard a guess; is it: Having completed the review of this article that was created and nominated by LavaBaron, then having expanded the article, quite naturally you are calling for the advice of another reviewer to decide if this GAN is GA? —Prhartcom♥ 05:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I feel as if Smerus has significantly improved and expanded this article from my original contribution so will defer to him on this question, and the future of the article more generally! LavaBaron (talk) 05:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: - Having done the review, and made my comments, I then decided to take it on myself to rewrite the article, building on the work of LavaBaron. But by doing so I have of course forfeited any rights to comment on its status as GA. If you (or anyone else) wish to undertake a GA review on its present state that is of course fine by me. Best, --Smerus (talk) 08:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll give it a close look this weekend. Looks like good work so far. —Prhartcom♥ 04:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

---

2nd Opinion

Lead

• I wish that I could see a screenshot of one or two of the more important sources cited by this article but inaccessible to me, such as page 144 of the JSTOR copy of Crowder 1921. Not having that, would you please go to one or two sources critical to this article and verify for me that it backs up every one of the following facts:
  • George Frideric Handel's opera is Giulio Cesare (1724), libretto by Nicola Francesco Haym
  • Act 1, Scene 9 of the opera contains a da capo aria Va tacito e nascosto
  • The aria is sung by the character Julius Caesar
  • The aria is scored for strings and natural horns
  • The aria is for a particular voice type (see the next note below; I would like to know what term the sources use)

If any of the above facts are not present in those one or two critical sources, please say so below or cite a source that does.

• Did the sources really say "male alto"? Perhaps the sources say that the voice type is the countertenor? I ask because "alto" is technically not a solo voice type (while a contralto is, but it is a female voice type) and because "alto" is more of a choral term; I would have thought the sources use the term countertenor. Later, in the article body, the term "alto castrato" is used, while the Wikipedia article for Senesino uses the (correct) term "contralto castrato". I think the search for the best term for this voice may even be an ongoing source of controversy. I am simply asking that we ensure we are not making a mistake in Wikipedia when identifying the technical name of this voice. Of course we do not wish to insert original research (mine included) into the article; of course we do wish to reference the best available sources and use the terms used by the sources. It would be great if this article was consistent with generally accepted usage and with the voice type articles on Wikipedia. Please double-check all cited sources and ensure the article is using the correct term.

• The citation to Crowder 1921 (source 1) should be removed from the lead and placed into the article body, probably into its first sentence. Generally, the lead does not cite references; only the article body does.

• I see the opera's Wikipedia article is titled Giulio Cesare, not Giulio Cesare in Egitto; this article's link redirects to the shorter-named article. You may want to consider renaming and linking to the shorter, more commonly known opera title in this article. If not, you may want to link to to the shorter title while using the longer title.

• Where the quote closes with "... the idea of the words." an extra full stop was added; please remove the period after the closing quote. On Wikipedia, we use the logical quotation, which insists that the period be inserted before the closing quote if it is part of what is being quoted, as it is here. It certainly is not inserted in both places.

Music

• The main facts from the lead should be restated here, and properly linked as before. The article body should by able to exist apart from the article lead; the reader should be able to read the article body and get all of the basic facts and they should all be linked; none of the facts stated in the lead critical to understanding the subject should be missing from the body. For example, certainly the first sentence of the article body should contain the opera's title; replace "the opera" with "the opera Giulio Cesare" (properly linked). If other facts exist only in the lead, write and link them here as well.

• I notice that the Met Opera source (source 2), while for a different Giulio Cesare aria, does contain the fact that this aria Va tacito e nascosto features extensive solos for natural horn that echo Caesar every time the word "cacciator" (hunter) is sung; this is cited in the article body correctly. However, notice that all of the facts stated in the article body before this are not cited at all, or implied to be cited by this Met Opera source. Please cite all the facts stated in the first several sentences of the article body.

• The "act 1" should be "Act 1". Same further down; should be "Act 1, Scene 9". These are titles of sections; titles are capitalized.

• No comma before "in Act 1". Same further down; no comma before "in registers".

• The two commas surrounding the "(1740)" and the "(particularly difficult ... modern player)" parenthetical statements should be removed; they are redundant with the parenthesis. A similar problem appears at the mention of "Mirth, admit me"; the comma before and after the title's quote marks are incorrect and should be removed. On the other hand, a descriptive phrase such as "which were written between 1724 and 1726" is one that should be set apart by a comma before and a comma after; here there is a comma after, but the comma before should be added (the closing parenthesis here does not substitute the missing comma). All other descriptive phrases in this article are correctly set apart by commas.

• This article has a lot of comma issues. Commas are only inserted according to grammatical rules and are never inserted for style or to indicate a pause in speech. No comma is should be before "and has been described". Same further down; no comma before "and is scored", "and was sung", "and first used", "and this would seem", "and Tolomeo has ordered", and "and Alessandro Scarlatti's Tigrane". It is redundant to insert a comma before an "and" when describing two things that are set apart by the "and". (The exception is a completely different situation: When using an Oxford comma in the last two items of a list.) Note that the two things set apart by "and" should be related in some way; for example, describing a pairing of two related ideas. If the ideas are unrelated, consider using a semicolan instead or consider describing the two things in two separate sentences. For example, this should occur for the "and is scored", for the "and this would seem", and for the "and Tolomeo has ordered" mentioned above; they could all benefit by having the two things they describe be set apart by a semicolan or a full stop. Meanwhile, the "and was sung" and the "and first used" clearly benefit by remaining together in the same sentence. The "Keiser's opera Octavia (1705), and Alessandro Scarlatti's Tigrane" is clearly a list of two items; no comma is ever used in that case.

• "The vocal part as it now stands was originally": This comes across as saying two contradictory things. Delete "as it now stands".

• The "and was sung by Senesino" phrase begs the question of who is Senesino (i.e., is it a real person or a character?), so introduce him with a quick "the celebrated performer" or similar.

• Not "counter-tenor", but "countertenor", especially alongside the mention of "modern productions".

• The sentence ending "bass to soprano" that is entirely contained in parenthesis is fine and appropriate, however its closing full stop should be inside the parenthesis. It would also be fine to remove these parenthesis.

• A sentence is currently unreadable, containing too many ideas reads haltingly: "Although the imagery of the words and music seems particularly appropriate to Caesar's situation, in Handel's original draft of Act I of the opera the music, to a slightly different text, was allocated to Cleopatra's cousin Berenice, who urges Cleopatra to stalk Caesar like a crafty hunter to make him enamoured of her." It took me many re-readings, but I think I finally determined that it is trying to communicate the following things:
  • An earlier draft of the aria once existed: Same music but slightly different text
  • This early draft was written, not for Caesar, but for Cleopatra's cousin Berenice
  • Berenice urges Cleopatra to stalk Caesar like a crafty hunter to make him enamoured of her
  • However, in the finished draft of the aria, the imagery of the words and music seems particularly appropriate to Caesar's situation

Please rewrite and break apart into two or more understandable sentences.

• "The character of Berenice was however": The "however" should be surrounded by two commas or it could simply be deleted.

• One of the phrases from the above appears to contain some original research; it states "the imagery .. seems particularly appropriate"; Wikipedia provides its readers what is and does not speculate what "seems". Please rewrite.

Text

• This section is fine.

Interpretations

• "Charles Burney, who wrote that": Please change to "Charles Burney, who wrote"

• The second paragraph needs a year or at least a century, similar to the first paragraph; we don't know when this festival took place.

Closing thoughts

Brilliant job otherwise; well-researched and well-written. I believe this article is finally broad in its coverage, which I know was the new goal. There are no copyright issues; the article is neutral, stable, and illustrated. Please improve the article according to this feedback and reply with your thoughts; I will then close the review. —Prhartcom♥ 21:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• Many thanks for this: I will go over your comments in the next few days and report back.--Smerus (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Response to 2nd opinion review

Firstly, thanks to Prhart for a very thorough review.

I have met a number of the issues (e.g. those concerning the lead) by recasting the article to some extent, mainly by changing the order and contents of sections, and have also added a few additional references where needed.

As regards punctuation, especially as regards commas, I have carefully reviewed usage. I do not concur with all of Prhart's proposals; I have referred to MOS:COMMA and note that, according to this guideline, the dictum "Commas are only inserted according to grammatical rules and are never inserted for style or to indicate a pause in speech" is not prescriptive. Nonetheless I have reviewed the use of commas throughout, seeking to ensure that the usage is consistent with both MOS and my own style, and agreeing with Prhart's recommendations in many instances.

With the other recommendations I have agreed and made changes accordingly.

Best, --Smerus (talk) 08:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

PS. Re 'alto castrato': the voice is so described in Hicks (n.d.) and the reference is given in the article.--Smerus (talk) 08:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with User:Prhartcom's suggestion to spell "act" and "scene" with uppercase letters; MOS:CAPS is silent in this matter and CMoS section 8.194 categorically recommends lower case for these words. This is obviously not universal usage, but if in doubt, Wikipedia prefers lower case, and the Wikiproject Opera has been following this practice for a long time. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Then I will convert to lower case in the article as it stands.--Smerus (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)