Talk:Thespis (opera)/Archives

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

GA pass

Excellent article. A few minor notes.

  • Wikisource template should be at the bottom in the see also section.
  • First image is a bit too wide - shrink or replace with another in the lead area.
  • A few more internet sources would be nice, if possible...
  • "References" should come after footnotes section, or be a subsection of it.
  • A bit long, but I'm not sure how you could shorten it...
  • This talk page needs to be archived.

Otherwise, excellent. Great work! — H2O —  09:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't know how many internet sources of quality there are, to be honest. If we can find any, great, but I'm not getting my hopes up too much. I also don't see how it could be shortened or subdivided in a reasonable way. Rest seem to have been done.Adam Cuerden talk 23:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
Not sure I follow this one: MoS says 3-4 paragraphs; we have three. What's the problem? Adam Cuerden talk 23:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree - I think that the most important info about this subject is already summarized in the LEAD, which gives a good overview of the article and sufficient information about its notability. -- Ssilvers 02:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I went through and added more bluelinks. -- Ssilvers 01:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
They have captions as concise as is appropriate. Adam Cuerden talk 23:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that some of the information in some of the captions might be transferred into the accompanying narrative. Adam, would you please consider? -- Ssilvers 02:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
We have to be careful moving too much information to the narrative, simply because at some screen sizes, or large fonts the pictures might not be where we meant them to be. Adam Cuerden talk 03:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
We do not use infoboxes in the WP:G&S project style guidelines. -- Ssilvers 02:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
It's in a quote Adam Cuerden talk 23:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
In this case, I think that would make the meaning unclear. Adam Cuerden talk 23:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
Style guideline in question says "(b) a system of hierarchical headings and table of contents that is substantial but not overwhelming (see section help);" Section help is instructions on making subsections. Think we're alright. Could use {{TOClimit|limit=2}} if needed. Adam Cuerden talk 23:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
Seems alright. Adam Cuerden talk 23:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I do not think that this article about one opera needs subpages. The topic is fairly limited. The fact that this article explores its topic very comprehensively does not mean that it should be subdivided. -- Ssilvers 02:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • it has been
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
In quotes. Adam Cuerden talk 23:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
Think we're alright here - again, it's picking up the quotes. Adam Cuerden talk 23:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: couldn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
In quotes Adam Cuerden talk 23:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Check. Adam Cuerden talk 23:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd say that this article is pretty well copy edited. -- Ssilvers 02:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks,  — H2O —  09:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Caption expansion?

A contemporary illustration of Thespis from The Illustrated London News of 6 January, 1872. Shown (from left to right): Apollo, Mars, Jupiter, Thespis, Stupidas (background, in pointy hat), Preposteros (arms crossed), Mercury
A contemporary illustration of Thespis from The Illustrated London News of 6 January, 1872. Shown (from left to right): Apollo, Mars, Jupiter, Thespis, Stupidas (background, in pointy hat), Preposteros (arms crossed), Mercury[1]

What do you think? This may mean moving the images around to put this next to the cast list, and all the rest of the headache that causes. Adam Cuerden talk 00:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Why not say in the text, "The illustration shown at right depticts Apollo, Mars, Jupiter, Thespis, Stupidas (background, in pointy hat), Preposteros (arms crossed) and Mercury [and say what they are doing]"? -- Ssilvers 02:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Because there's nowhere we can actually put that in, and get it too both fit in with the flow of the article and be unambiguously next to the picture. Adam Cuerden talk 02:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
A contemporary illustration of Thespis, showing the original actors and staging late in Act I. From left to right: Apollo, Mars, Jupiter, Thespis, Stupidas (background, in pointy hat), Preposteros (arms crossed), and Mercury
A contemporary illustration of Thespis, showing the original actors and staging late in Act I. From left to right: Apollo, Mars, Jupiter, Thespis, Stupidas (background, in pointy hat), Preposteros (arms crossed), and Mercury[2]
I suppose we could cut the information about what newspaper it's from? Adam Cuerden talk 02:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that's better. You say it's "contemporary", and if one wants to know more, they can click on the image. Also, shouldn't you add all the information here to the image page? -- Ssilvers 22:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Added it. Should we use this caption in the article, though? Adam Cuerden talk 22:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a Wikibias against long captions, which would be the main concern. I'm not sure it's really all that important. Also (I don't have the book handy), does Rees actually identify each and every one of the characters? Marc Shepherd 19:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Rearrangement

I've broken the "Production" section up, and redistributed its two paragraphs to other sections, so that Background could be moved earlier (see the FAC). I've put musical numbers after the plot synopsis, which seemed a little more sensible, somehow. Obviously, feel free to have more of a poke at it, and, tomorrow or so, when it's settled down, I'll fix the left-right pattern of the images. Adam Cuerden talk 23:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

What if we just moved the Genesis section above the lists? Adam Cuerden talk 23:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the Background section should be kept together as is. The major question seems to be whether the Background should go before or after the roles/songs/plot, and I am on the fence. -- Ssilvers 23:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

We could wait and see what the other reviewers say. Adam Cuerden talk 00:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

A few thoughts (all IMHO):

  • Background and Reception should go together, as the former flows rather naturally into the latter. But I would support moving the first three sections (Roles, Musical Numbers, Synopsis) to a point later in the article, such as after Reception. The Assessment section does not necessarily need to directly follow Reception.
  • Roles and Synopsis should go together, as anyone reading the synopsis is probably going to want a list of roles nearby. But the list of musical numbers is considerably less important, and could be separated from the sections surrounding it. It might even be original research. The score was never published, and if it had been published, there's no assurance that the breakdown of numbers would have been the way the article portrays it. Since no one can go out and buy the score, the section doesn't add a lot of value. It also partly duplicates information stated elsewhere (surviving numbers, ballet).
I made it up from the libretto (plus the Picnic Waltz from Rees and a few other notes.) The numbering is, as I've said, arbitrary. I just numbered them in libretto order. The picnic waltz is 5a because it's clear it existed, but isn't mentioned in the libretto. Could always cut the numbering. Adam Cuerden talk 20:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I realize you made it up. It's precisely for that reason that I'm wondering whether we really need it. The new placement of Roles and Synopsis is definitely better, but the Musical Numbers section seems awkward. In the current edit, it forces the succeeding section to be captioned "Assessment of the Music," which is redundant, as it's already part of sections called "Assessment" and "Music." Marc Shepherd 20:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
No, the reason we can't just say "Music" is because there is yet another section called Surviving Music. However, I think this new arrangement is much worse than before. It was OK as it was. Please put it back. -- Ssilvers 20:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • A previous commenter questioned section names that start with "The", which violates the MOS. There are two of these, "The Music" and "The state of the text". I see no problem with deleting the word "The" from both headings. Marc Shepherd 19:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I thought you were going to leave the organization of the article alone pending comments of reviewers. Now you have completely rearranged the article, and I think this new arrangement is much worse than before. Please put it back. -- Ssilvers 20:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Marc or anyone, what do you think of this order, before I revert? -- Ssilvers 01:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
At the moment, it's totally screwed up. What I said (above) was that I could potentially see the benefit of moving Roles+Synopsis to a position between Reception and Assessment. Instead, Adam cleaved a hole in Reception, splitting it into two parts, which doesn't make any sense. I don't like the new placement of Musical Numbers at all. Marc Shepherd 02:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, why not just move the list of numbers to, say, just after the synopsis? I think it's useful to have the list before the Assessment of the Music, because we refer to songs by name in that section. Adam Cuerden talk 03:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
At this point, my vote is to put Roles+Synopsis just before Assessment, and to drop Musical Numbers entirely. Marc Shepherd 03:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I moved the Musical Numbers below the Synopsis, removed the numbering and simplified the intro. I think the musical numbers are useful to give an idea of where in the libretto the numbers appear and give context to the surviving numbers. If we do move Roles and synopsis, I would move Musical Numbers with them. -- Ssilvers 05:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Based on the comments received, I would not object to moving Roles/Plot/Musical #s further down, but I'd keep 'em together. Adam, can you do it without messing up the refs? Also, in response to a question at the comment page, I added a ref to the discography and noted that "Little Maid" has been recorded. -- Ssilvers 19:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you fellows try not to revert all the spelling fixes and other such things just to move sections around? It's a lot easier to move a block of text than to keep having to make edits over and over: I *had* noted the Little Madid of Arcadee and Climbing over Rocky Mountain recordings. I'm happy to do this, but can we agree on where to move them to first, so we aren't losing all the other edits at the same time? Adam Cuerden talk 22:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. I don't think you saved whatever changes you are referring to. -- Ssilvers 22:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Here, though I see Marc reverted it when he was reverting all the clarification about when the reviews were from. Adam Cuerden talk 00:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I was a little grumpy: Long train rides have a tendency to give me terrible gas and stomach cramps, and they've really only just cleared today. Adam Cuerden talk 03:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)