Talk:Parsifal/Comments
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(See Talk Page for GA review)
82/100 Still a spot of A. Blending short musical extracts with a discussion of the music is the most obvious place to improve the article. That and more on the recordings and recent performance histort should get this to A.
- Background/history of composition/discussion of plot and/or text, etc.: 14/15 Excellent. I am still aware of suggestions that Parsifal should be viewed as pagan. These might be discussed.
- Performance history, including recent performance history and creators of roles: 12/15. Strong on earlier performances through to the new Bayreuth. Might still look at some more recent productions.
- Tabulated list of roles 5/5. I think the "Ein Stimme" could be lost before going for FA.
- Synopsis 9/10. The language will need polishing before FA.
- Notable arias, etc: (preferably embedded in the synopsis): 4/5. Most of the way there. I would suggest including the phrase "transformation scene" for the interludes. And the choral passages of the communion scene might be highlighted - Muck recorded them, for example.
- Critical appreciation, discussion of music etc: 11/15. Much is there. I think the music might be explored a bit more form sources and with linked extracts.
- Recordings 7/10. A good start. The table contains space for cataolgue numbers, but these are not given. I'm surprised that the Gui/Callas/Christoff recordign isn't mentioned. And key recordings of extracts including Muck could be listed.
- Illustrations, including musical illustrations: 7/10. I would favour some smaller excerpt to illustrate the highlighted arias, chorises etc.
- Inline references, notes, sources, external links: 13/15. A little more work is needed especially on referencing before goign for FA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter cohen (talk • contribs) 20:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
