Talk:The Fairy-Queen
 | Opera Unassessed | ||||||
| |||||||
 | The Fairy-Queen was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (No date specified. To provide a date use: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
Good article nomination
I'd recommend developing the synopsis which is currently very short (see Grove which has a much longer one), while adding performance and recording histories and a bibliography. Hope this is helpful. - Kleinzach 17:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- As Moreschi noted elsewhere, it does not make sense to have a long synopsis in this case, since it's a very literal rendition of A midsummer night's dream and people can go to that article for a synopsis of the play. (this is mostly for GA reviewers' benefit). Mak (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Bibliography done. Moreschi 21:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Good Article nomination has failed
The Good article nomination for The Fairy-Queen has failed, for the following reason(s):
- I think this article needs inline citations (such as footnotes) for many of its statements. There are references listed, but one has no idea which one applies to which statement, so verifiability is an issue. Example statements would be, "A possible author of the libretto is Thomas Betterton, with whom Purcell worked on Dioclesian." and "The Fairy-Queen contains some of Purcell's finest music, as musicologists have agreed for generations."
- Expand the information on the Shakespeare's text being modernized and the development of the libretto.. these deserve sections and thorough explanations.
- Expand information on performances and history.
- Expand information on the masques and how they work into the storyline. This was an interesting topic for me, a first-time reader of an article about opera. I was curious what all the masques are and when they occur in the opera. You cover that somewhat in the Context and Analysis section, but you rush through the explanation. Since the opera is an adaptation and therefore doesn't have a thorough synopsis, it needs good coverage of how the adaptation was written and implemented.
Keep up the good work and I will look for this to be nominated again! Aguerriero (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- O.K, there are some valid points in there, and all the criticism is constructively meant, which is more than happens with some GA reviewers. So thank you, even if I am obviously disappointed that the article didn't pass.
- Point 1 about references - fair enough. I'll see what I can do.
- Points 3 and 4 - also fair enough. Ditto.
- Point 2 - here, I'm afraid, I have to take exception. I don't think there's anything much to say on the development of the libretto. We don't even know the librettist's name, and essentially what he did was to horribly vandalize Shakespeare's divine play and write some mediocre masques, rescued by Purcell's divine music. I'll put some more info in as regards exactly how lowly Shakespeare was regarded at this time, but this wasn't cultural evolution. This was cultural barbarity. I would have mentioned some of this, but was worried about POV.
- Anyway, thank for the comments. Best, Moreschi 18:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Terrific, and thanks for the response. The article is good - good enough that it got me interested in it even though I don't follow opera. I wanted to read more, hence the requests for expansion. As for point 2 above, noted. That is actually very interesting and I would love to see it in the article - don't think it would be POV if you have a citation. If the libretto is universally considered garbage by opera scholars, that's definitely worth writing about. Good luck and I will look for this nom again. --Aguerriero (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)