Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sylvia (ballet)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] sylvia (ballet)

I believe that this article exemplefies how all theater articles should be written, and is an excellent example of a wikipedia article. Therefore this article should be featured Cpl.Luke 03:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. The images Image:Sylmurbel.jpg, Image:Sylherrera.jpg, Image:Sylkentsav.jpg are under a license of "used with permission". This is not an acceptable license for Wikipedia.
  2. The image Image:Sangalli edited.jpg has no copyright information.
  3. The image Image:Sylviascore.gif is claimed as "fair use". If it's a scan of part of the sheet music, it's probably in the public domain.

  --Carnildo 05:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Fair use also applies for 1 and 2 which makes it acceptable, no? I know its not ideal, but I thought that the images were so good it outweighs it. For number 3, the image must have been created over 100 years ago, however I found it in a ballet periodical (which is cited), would that be public domain?. Number 4 was found here, and while the sheet music might be public domain, this graphic of it doesn't seem to be. I claim fair-use. Could we recreated the graphic? -- Rmrfstar 11:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I think the with-permission images fit the guidelines at Wikipedia:Fair use, so if you add a fair-use justification to the image description page, that'll be ok.
    • Image:Sangalli edited.jpg is almost certainly a poster from the 1876 production: I've updated the image description page to indicate this.
    • For the sheet music, we can certainly re-create it, since the original is out of copyright. Doing so will give a better-quality image as well. --Carnildo 18:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
      • The relevant images are labeled as being presumed to be fair-use now.
      • Concerning remaking the sheet music image, I guess I could figure out how to do that... unless someone who actually knows how to do it properly can... -- Rmrfstar 04:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Update it seems that one cannot simply rewrite the sheet music from this source, it would be a copyvio. We need a free source of the sheet music before we can recreate it (in which case we probably wouldn't have to...). It seems that the current image is the best that we can do for the time being, however I plan on revisiting the Library of Performing Arts next weekend and I might be able to find a copy there. -- Rmrfstar 00:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Regarding the images listed at #1, would it be possible to contact the copyright holder and get them to release lower-resolution versions of the images under the GFDL or an appropriate Creative Commons license? --Carnildo 06:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I have requested this by email and await a reply. -- Rmrfstar 04:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object- recent productions section needs to be improved. For example, there is only an external link for the 2004 production. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 18:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Does the updated section satisfy? -- Rmrfstar 04:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, that's better. However, I still have an objection- from the lead section: "the ballet is typical classical ballet on the surface, but underneath, it is quite remarkable.", "...were even better received (partly because the audiences were starved for such a classical ballet).", and "Sylvia is notable for its mythological Arcadian setting, creative choreographies, expansive sets, its great influence on music, ballet and theatre, and, above all, its brilliant score." The first statement is quite POV and unreferenced, saying that it is remarkable. The second statement's parenthesis phrase seems to stick out, not only because it seems to be an opinion, but that it is irrelevant to the ballet. The third sentence also appears very POV, saying it has "brilliant score"- perhaps reword to say that "critics have cited its brilliant score", providing a citation? Finally, just a comment- there seems to be a lot of red links... Otherwise, this is a great article! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
      • First, thanks for the suggestions! By "remarkable" I mean "worthy of notice", the word has no positive denotation[1], but I put it where "brilliant" was and linked it to ===Music=== for proof of its notability. I also took out the parenthetic phrase because I don't have a good source for that bit, (though I do contend that such a fact is significant). Yes, there are too many redlinks, Wikipedian's have little interest in ballet. After I get this through FAC, I plan on making every one of them a stub. -- Rmrfstar 23:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
        • OK, support. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object: I ran this by a friend who is expert on classical ballet, travels to see companies around the U.S. and beyond, etc. She prefers not to be named here on Wikipedia, but here's what she has to say; I would be astounded if she is not right on all counts, but I myself have no expertise in this area; if anyone thinks she is wrong on any of this, I can carry on correspondence. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:15, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

There is one statement in particular that makes me question the author; there are a couple of factual things as well:

"The 1952 revival rechoreographed by Sir Frederick Ashton, however, drew significant positive attention and popularized the ballet. The 1997, 2004 and 2005 versions, all based off of Ashton, were even better received."

The 2004 version by Mark Morris was not based on Ashton. Morris saw a rehearsal of the Ashton/Royal Ballet version, but, according to this interview, was influenced by it by one detail, although there are a couple of small step quotes in as well.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/04/26/DDGPT6AEAS1.DTL

According to the program notes, excerpts of which I posted to Ballet Talk -- unfortunately the link to the full notes is no longer active on the San Francisco Ballet site --

"Enthusing about the magnificence of Léo Delibes' music, Morris explains that the stage directions from the original production have been written right into the manuscript score, and that he is choosing to follow them- "more or less."

"While he is preserving its essences, Morris says he has simplified some of the storyline, and for his SF Ballet staging has eliminated what he considers extraneous. "I want it to be clear and beautiful-not simple, but clear."

"Choreographer Mark Morris has elected to follow the original scenario which was handed to Delibes while he was composing the score. "This music was written to order, as yardage," Morris explains, "you know, 'give me 16 bars to get the girls off,' that's there in the score."

Morris' source was the original libretto, not anything that Ashton did, and Morris' choreography and style are much different than Ashton's. Also, in the article above, according to Morris' research, Ashton did 1-, 2-, and 3-act version.

The factual issues that I know off-hand:

1. Fonteyn was not a student of Ashton's; she was a student of Ninette de Valois and Valois' staff. Fonteyn was a young dancer that de Valois wanted to promote, and Ashton choreographer for her.

2. Two ballerinas are missing from the SFB cast: Yuan Yuan Tan, who danced the premiere, and Vanessa Zahorian.

Reactions to the 2004 revival of Sylvia at the Royal Ballet were mixed. At this point, ballet people are so starved for anything truly classical, it's the equivalent of finding a lost minor piece by Mozart.

Even for viewers and critics who didn't like the Morris version, or think that the Royal Ballet can no longer do the style of Sylvia, which was very 50's, or think ABT's version was sloppy, the common rave was for the music.

<end forwarded remarks>

• • I shall fix what I can and get back with any questions or comments about the changes. -- Rmrfstar 04:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Update I added Yuan Yuan Tan; corrected the Fonteyn thing (not technically a student of ashton); took out: 2004 was based off of ashton. I shall add some more about morris though... -- Rmrfstar 04:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Update I just added what I could about Morris from the San Francisco Chronicle article, however, I'd like to use some of those quotes which were in the program notes. If you could find the explicit source of them, we could. I hope this satisfies your qualms with the article. If you (or your ballet expert friend) could add any more, please do so. -- Rmrfstar 12:14, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
        • My friend says she doesn't have the program, and it's no longer on the SF Ballet site, but suggests that if you contact the SF Ballet they would probably be glad to help, and undoubtedly have either hard or soft copy somewhere. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:25, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
          • I have requested this by email and await a reply. -- Rmrfstar 04:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Oh, by the way support. It could probably get better in the future, but it certainly makes the cut. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:51, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

• support every objection seems to have been met- see nominationCpl.Luke 03:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support Yes there is room for improvement, but neither I nor anyone else (it seems) can find any reasons why it shouldn't be featured. -- Rmrfstar 12:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)