# Talk:Mirella Freni

Added a paragraph about her performance in Le Nozze di Figaro movie. I have just seen it for the nth time and she is awesome, probably the best actress of the cast ! --82.120.27.170 21:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Alten

Opps.. i moved the photo to the right but i said left, sorry! - Jay 07:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Freni performed the Puccini Opera with the San Francisco Opera in November and December of 1983.  This was not one of the operas that she only performed on recording.
http://archive.sfopera.com/reports/rptOpera-id781.pdf
http://archive.sfopera.com/qry12webPicsPop.asp?pic_m=83ManRS07&desc_m=Mirella+Freni+%28Manon+Lescaut%29+%28PHOTO%3A+Scherl%29&OperaID_m=781&UNCPath_m=83ManRS07
GFMLB (talk) 04:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Mme. Freni is a very small person. Is she in fact a dwarf or simply very short? Dwarfs are normal in most respects but some stigma remains and their accomplishments should be recognized. Virgil H. Soule (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Short, yes.  Dwarf, no.  GeeBee60 (talk) 08:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt sorry for the headache! bringing this here rather than the user talk. I am not quite sure what I am supposed to say because there wasn't anything blatantly wrong pointed out, which is a bit frustrating as an editor (I thought it was just one oversight of mine). so per changes need a good reason, here are my reasonings for the edits, I suppose.

this is a general copyediting of the article, made in good faith. it does not focus on the prose content, but on everything around it
on the lead, infobox and external links section, cleared up the wikitext and visual result for readability
added alt text; added IPA and moved it to notes; grouped databases and recordings
renamed references to be more clear (the whole page is a biography, so career is more direct)
references updated with some additions and normalised with ProveIt
hope to hear your review soon. Juwan (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for having caused irritation and the feeling that good-faith changes were rejected. I was travelling, the article was on the main page, I had about five minutes to look at the changes and do something, which was too little to do anything detailed. Now, with a bit more time, some advice:
When you make copy-edits to an article (any, but especially while on the main page), split your edits in several (one for typos, one for renaming references, one for clearing up wikitext, and so on) with specific edit summaries about the kind of change. I faced a ref of changes that wasn't clear at all about what changed, so - seeing the changes to the refs I particularly disliked - had no choice but to revert the whole thing, probably reverting some good things as well.
When making changes to a GA or FA, keep in mind that it has been reviewed by at least one competent person in addition to the author(s), and will probably be acceptable.
Don't make what we call cosmetic changes, changes that don't change the appearance for the reader:
No point, really, to change "good article" to "Good article", - and that was my first impression.
No point, really, to add spaces in an infobox.
No point, really, to have a few items of a list in an infobox in separate lines. An editor will have seen them like that before going in edit mode.
No point, really, to remove single spaces from section headers.
No point making headers such as "Recordings of Freni" - her name is redundant, - of whom else?
There's also no point in changing citation style. I admit that this was the work of many, and I had other topics on my mind keeping me from unifying it, but this also is nothing relevant to the reader. I will change it towards a reflist.
Positive:
I would not have reverted the size for the honorific title (although I don't see how it helps).
I like the change from blockquote to template quote.
I may have missed things that changed. Please feel free to put them in, in small edits, with explanation.
In a nutshell: change only what will make a difference to the reader. There are many corners with wrong spelling and  ambiguous facts. Happy editing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
thank you so much for your advice! I will try to act on it, with some difficulty for a while because I am only a fallable human. Juwan (talk) 12:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
We are all fallable humans ;) - You still made cosmetic edits such as writing "Good article" instead of "good article", why? You still put many types of changes into edit, why? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
I tried to group these by section where they all serve the same general purpose which makes them more self-contained I suppose. for these cosmetic changes, I thought a bit about whether to copy from old edits, and I did so because, at least in this new case, they are little enough that it wouldn't be too much of a hassle for maintainers to notice, and for spacing for example, they are helpful to editors like me who have difficulties with reading infoboxes when cramped. I am not sure how little to split edits otherwise I will just make an edit with ~10 byte changes, 10 times. Juwan (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)