# Talk:Fatinitza

One Opera project thing is infoboxes with pictures of the composer. Is it alright to switch out the image to one a bit more related to the opera? Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

This "infobox" isn't an infobox ;)
An infobox for this work might look like this. I suggest to include the links to other operas to a navbox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Here you go: {{Franz von Suppé}}. You may want to have an image of the composer elsewhere in the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
The navigation box currently in the article, {{Suppé operas}}, can easily be modified to accommodate other images. Following the work by User:Robert.Allen at Template:Verdi operas/sandbox, it boils down to inserting
|image={{#if:{{{altimage|}}} | {{{altimage}}} |Franz von Suppé.jpg}}
and then invoking {{Suppé operas}} here with the parameter |altimage=your preferred.jpg. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
It's far easier than that.
|image={{altimage|Franz von Suppé.jpg}}
...works just as well. But I wasn't sure the Wikiproject permitted that. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
You could also be bold and go for an infobox right away. On project opera, there a few reasons for it, and so far not one for the side navbox other than "I like it" and "We always did it that way" (all by me, please add). An interesting discussion started yesterday on Talk:Mont Juic (suite), - aspects I didn't fully understand. Learning, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you're right. What I think I'll do is first, add a background section about Franz von Suppé, as I do want to include a picture of him, and then switch to the Infobox. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear Adam, just to be perfectly clear - Gerda's chartacterisation of infobox discussion is not accurate. Very many editors of opera articles dislike infoboxes for a number of reasons that go far beyond Gerda's trivial, partisan and unhelpful summary of the Wikiproject discussion. They (like me) scarcely bothered to contribute to the discussion on Wikiproject Opera because they are fed up with Gerda rabitting on about it. You may be unaware that there is a major row going on about the activties of Gerda and others with relation to infoboxes here. In fact, it was well under way at the time when Gerda made her modest proposal for your article. My view for what it is worth - as Gerda has been keen to advance her own opinion -  is that editors' energies are better spent creating and improving articles than tinkering about with useless items of decor. I believe that a number of others also share my view. Best,--Smerus (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree.  The summary nails it as far as I can see.  And once again, you resort to bullying Gerda for good faith, well-reasoned suggestions that would be very helpful.  But never mind, the real drama isn't on this page... Montanabw(talk) 17:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I would favor restoring the picture of the composer with the navbox to the top of the article which is a much more convenient location for these links. The picture currently in the infobox (the infobox otherwise contributes nothing), could be moved to the Synopsis section. This would also be more consistent with the other articles on operettas by this composer and more consistent with most other articles on opera and operetta at Wikipedia. The composer navbox has been used for a long time, has been refined to a format and simplicity that has found wide acceptance, and is very useful, --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
So would I, for the same reasons. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I think the author should be respected ;) The infobox provides date and place of the article's topic at a glance, a service to readers. Entering an article, readers should not navigate away to other works of the composer. If interested in them, they will know that a click on the composer's name will get to more complete information on his life and works. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Honestly, given the Gilbert and Sullivan Wikiproject uses navigation at the bottom and NO infoboxes (and heaven help you if you suggest they do!) I don't think we're getting consistency anyway. That said, we only have a few Suppé articles - how about a compromise where we just add an "Other operas by von Suppé" to the infobox? Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Heaven help me, I volunteer to do infoboxes on the other works, for consistency ;) - I did that for the works by Méhul, we know how much it was appreciated, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Re: adding navlinks to the infobox. Voceditenore tried this, but there was opposition and it was reverted. Personally, I am open to a trial of this idea. However, we need to have it done in a way that there is a single page with an editable list that is included by possibly a parameter value. --Robert.Allen (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Voceditenore suggested this option (it's there, see example on Talk:Götterdämmerung#Infobox) for cases where there is no footer navbox, please compare the examples in the template talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I would not have a problem with having collapsible navlinks in both locations, especially if this could lead to some kind of compromise. My main concern is not to lose the navlinks at the top, because that is a much more convenient location for them  Therefore, Adam's suggestion appeals to me. However, I'm not very optimistic that this approach is going to be accepted by many other editors. --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
You can do it, but it means extra maintenance, because if a new one is added you have to change them all. I would prefer, not only for his works, if the infobox could somehow link/point to the footer navbox, but I remember that Voceditore was against it. - I wonder how much these navlinks get used. It took me at least a year to understand the magic of that "show". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
It might be easier technically to add infobox features to the composer navbox (eg, here), than to try to add the navbox feature to Infobox opera. Adam probably would be better able to evaluate which would be the better approach technically speaking. Politically it might prove dicier to modify the composer navbox template. However, there is always the sandbox option to try these things out. --Robert.Allen (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
So much pain for so little gain, if any. The template {{Suppé operas}} provides navigation, the article's lead the info (which, unlike the present infobox, is correct and comprehensive). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
If only all editors could agree with us on this. But it's not going to happen... --Robert.Allen (talk) 07:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

This edit asserts that Fatinitza was premiered in Paris on 15 March 1875; that's about nine months before the premiere in Vienna, or a typo. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

IMSLP has the French vocal score version used for the Brussels premiére. [1] It gives the date as 28 Decembre 1878 (and also has the full cast: is that useful?). As such, I can't see how the Paris version could predate 1879. Conveniently, the source for that edit comes from 1879, so I think it's a typo (or possibly misreading: the numbers are somewhat similar in some fonts) for 1879 Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I found a source that shows I'm right, and added some information from it. I would link, but checking the dates, I'm pretty sure the Internet Archive shouldn't really be hosting it. Adam Cuerden (talk)
Yes – 1879 – apologies, a typo.Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
It happens to all of us. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

There are at least a couple of recordings, one in German and one in English (at the Library of Congress): CD at Amazon; OCLC 177082767, 43784470. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The article could be improved with a "Performance history" section. These two sources (available at many libraries) have much information:

Gänzl, Kurt (2001). The Encyclopedia of the Musical Theatre, second edition. New York: Schirmer Books. ISBN 978-0-02-864970-2.
Loewenberg, Alfred (1978). Annals of Opera 1597–1940 (third edition, revised). Totowa, New Jersey: Rowman and Littlefield. ISBN 9780874718515.
Robert.Allen (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice! I don't actually own either book so it may be a week or so before I get to the library to use them, but I certainly will. I've included the translations from Loewenberg already, though. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Adam, I may have overlooked some of your additions. I think of legacy as referring to influences on other artists esp. in other media, and not as performance history. Usually we have a Performance history section. Is there some reason why you did not add one here? --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree that it would be preferrable to name the "Legacy" section "Performance history" and to position it in line with WP:WPOSG, that is, after "Background" and before "Roles". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

If Hamlet (opera) is a C, how does this rate a B? --Robert.Allen (talk) 06:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

So change it. As I was editing here anyway, it struck me that the article certainly was not "Start"-class, and it seemed more substantial then "C" to me, so I called it "B". Hamlet was changed from "Start" to "C" on 15 August 2010 by User:Xover; it should have been a "B" or better then, certainly now. What do you think how Hamlet and Fatinitza should be classified? Editing the parameter |class= for opera articles is just like any other edit; I think I can defend my edit, but if you see it differently, change it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I've never given it much thought before, although I was a bit surprised when Hamlet was given a C. I would hesitate to rate an article that I spent a lot of time on. It seems like kind of a conflict of interest. Don Carlos was given a B. I would lean toward a C here I suppose, but now I feel like I've contributed too much. So I'll leave it to you. --Robert.Allen (talk) 07:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fatinitza/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 20:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Will review. Looking forward to it. More soonest. Tim riley (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


#### Initial comments
I see the Peer Review is still open, which is unusual in a GA nominated article, though not, as far as I can see, actually contrary to WP rules. The following initial comments might just as well appear on that page as on this, but here they are anyway:

It is unclear whether the article is meant to be in British English or American English:
We have the British "recognises" (twice) and the American "analog", "catalog" and "program".
We have "premièred" with a grave accent, which one wouldn't expect in American prose, but we have "convinces them to aid" which is an entirely American construction.
We have "according to musicologist Andrew Lamb", which without the necessary definite article is either an Americanism or tabloidese.
We have both American and British date layouts: January 5, 1876 and 15 March 1879
We have the American form of possessive for names ending in "s" – Strauss' rather than Strauss's.
We have the modal form (American?) in "until … 1876, von Suppé would never write a full-length operetta" instead of the plain and preferable "until … 1876, Suppé did not write a full-length operetta", and "Suppé would finally try his hand" for "Suppé finally tried his hand". There's another example in the second sentence of "Legacy".
Première/premiere: need for consistency. Both appear in the article at present.
When referring to the composer by surname alone it should be "Suppé", and not "von Suppé" (cf. Beethoven, Bismarck, Hindenburg, Karajan et al).
Should all be fixed now.  Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Now, comments by section:

Lead
A bit thin, it seems to me. Given that the lead should sum up all the important bits of the article you might tell us that Suppé had been at it for 16 years before trying a full-length opera (though see my next comment) and also that the piece played in Paris, London, New York etc.
"Fatinitza was the first full-length, three-act operetta by Franz von Suppé" – I'm probably showing my ignorance, but I struggle with this statement. Leichte Kavallerie (1866) is in three acts and according to Boosey and Hawkes lasts 150 minutes, which is on a par with Fledermaus (160 minutes) and La Belle Hélène (150 minutes).
All I can say is that every reliable source I found uses that sort of construction. That version of Leichte Kavallerie says it's a "new musical arrangement by Horst Platen", perhaps it was expanded? Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I believe you're right about the edition. Grove says that the original Leichte Kavallerie is in two acts, and though Suppé is credited with seven three-act theatre pieces predating Fatizina none of them are described as an "Operette" (there are a Lustspiel, a grand opera, a Posse mit Gesang etc). Objection withdrawn. – Tim riley (talk) 12:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Legacy
"Boccaccio (1879), von Suppé's best-known and most popular work" – most popular opera possibly, but I'd bet a modest sum that his best known work is the overture to Leichte Kavallerie.
I think you're right. Fixed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
As you name the theatres for Naples and London premieres you might also name that for the New York premiere, as its name is on record (here).
Recordings
"19.." at the beginning has got to be dealt with
Checking this, the ONLY copy Worldcat lists appears to be at the Library of Congress. I'll check the site when it goes back up on Monday, but I may remove this one if it's generally unavailable. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
The Library of Congress offers it to be played on their site; I may migrate this here. In any case, the problem's fixed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
References
I think you ought to tell your readers when an online site is behind a paywall: the {{subscription}} tag would do the trick for Grove.
Think that's all of them. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
"pp. passim" seems otiose and unhelpful for the online refs
I've removed it for the Grove.
As you will note, the crucial "Roles" and "Synopsis" sections, attract no quibbles from me. I particularly like the way you indicate links to the German WP articles about three of the singers. I looked very carefully at the inverted commas around and not around "Fatizina" in the synopsis, and I think you have judged the matter precisely.
There is nothing about critical reception, at home or abroad, which I think you ought to mention (though I am aware of note 4 to criterion 3a at Wikipedia:Good article criteria, and wouldn't seek to make this a sticking point.)
Please consider these points and we can take the review from there. – Tim riley (talk) 09:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

In all honesty, I'm having a lot of trouble finding any sort of critical reception that's particularly quotable. The New York Times, for instance, managed to talk at great length about it without discussing either plot or music. I'm hoping to try some offline sources tomorrow; they'll be London-focused, but, frankly, this article is already as good or better than pretty much all other sources I've been able to find on the subject so if I fail... I'm not going to be as worried as I might be for a better-documented opera. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, this sinus infection's screwing up offline research for today, but I've nearly finished the list now. I'll expand the lead soon, when I feel a bit better rested (and will also get to James Clark Maxwell asap).


### GA
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
B. MoS compliance: 
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
C. No original research: 
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
B. Focused: 
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Bearing in mind what you say about the lack of sources I don't suppose we can look forward to seeing this article progress to FAC, but as to GA I can see no respect in which it fails to meet the GA criteria, and I hereby cut the ribbon. Tim riley (talk) 09:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I do have "day researching Fatinitza in the National Library of Scotland" planned. I'm hoping I can find more in period sources, though it may well be that I won't speak enough German in the end. Still, I'll see what I can do. Thanks for the review! Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

When reviewing this for GA I often typed in "Fatiniza" in the search box rather than "Fatinitza", which, if you follow the link, you will see is a bird of a very different feather. Perhaps a hatnote on both articles? Tim riley (talk) 09:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Henry Atwell Thomas - Franz von Suppé - Fatinitza.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 23, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-07-23. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)