# Talk:Maria Radner

Hi, can I upload a non-free image of Maria? Sadley, she passed away, and I think a photo of her, even a non-free one, would be approperite for this aritcle of her. CookieMonster755 (talk) 01:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC) 

CookieMonster755, why ask for permission? ...--Wuerzele (talk) 03:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Wuerzele, I don't get what your trying to say... CookieMonster755 (talk) 04:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
sorry,CookieMonster755 I meant "just do it". we'll see what happens. if it will be removed, so be it, but at least you tried! clearer now? thanks for the infobox.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome Wuerzele. CookieMonster755 (talk) 05:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Just a question, rather than an opinion one way or the other, but are we sure Maria Radner is notable as an opera singer? Of course, she's been all over the news these past three days, but per WP:1E I don't think we'd have an article for that reason alone. And she did not have any article at all until her death. Per WP:Notability (music) she has to have received "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself" or one of several other criteria. Is this the case? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Amakuru — She may not check out being notable under criteria for WP:1E, but she is surely notable for being an opera singer under WP:Notability (music). According to the Notability for Musicians (or opera singers in this case) critera: Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network, which is certainly true. According to Radner's Wikipedia article, In January 2012, Radner made her debut at the Metropolitan Opera in New York City in Götterdämmerung. The production of the opera was documented in the film Wagner's Dream by Robert Lepage and the February 11, 2012 performance was recorded and radio broadcast. That statement right their cerentally checks out for being a notable musician (or opera singer). Here is a source and another source to back up that statement. These sources certainly make her notable under the critera of WP:Notability (music). So basicly, she is notable and can (and does) have an Encyclopedia article. Hopefully, that answers your question if she is notable or not. Cheers. CookieMonster755 (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Thanks Amakuru for bringing this up. I truly struggled with the fact that there werent as you quoted "multiple, non-trivial, published works independent from the musician" I could work with, to flesh out her biography. This is why at present it reads more like a dizzying professional appointment calendar. I am glad to learn from the knowledgeable and careful CookieMonster755 -whom I never met before this article, but wish I had- that in my desperate search scratching the dry ground of online sources like a chicken for hours and hours and using the smallest specs I could find, I actually hit on some things, that others recognized as valuable, like the radio broadcast and the movie. Imagine my surprise, when the link of a recital announcement, which I consider a trivial and no independent third party source, sparked Gerda Arendt to create a hook for DYK!
For me, Maria Radner's life is an almost complete mystery. thats why I started the article when I did (curiosity and my links to german wiki pages on Germanwings Flight 9525 being reverted). I hope that more third party sources will be published in the long term. it would be great to know about her childhood, for example, but the people who would most know, are in shock and grieving. Her music professor said a tiny bit about her personality and  and I still have to translate and insert that. --Wuerzele (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the entry already makes he case for her notability, especially if you take ten minutes to click through on some of the source links.   Working with several top conductors and on some challenging bits repertoire.   But if your point is that there are a lot of people - many (but not all) of whom don't much follow classical music - who have heard of her only because of the circumstances of her death, which was unexpected, by many criteria premature, and shocking ... well yes.   Of course you're right.   There are plenty of precedents, though.   As far as I remember the Christian church - at least the bits of it that place faith in the Gregorian calendar - is planning to celebrate a particularly notable example in a couple of weeks.   I think that's part of how notability works.   Regards  Charles01 (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
To Wuerzele, you answer in some ways cuts to the reason why I asked this question. We have to ask ourselves whether, had we searched for Maria Radner the day before her death, would we have found any coverage on her in reliable sources, rather than just lists of concerts, sufficient to build an article out of? And would such an article have stood up to an AfD discussion, again assuming that she had not died in the plane accident. And to Charles01, yes, she has "worked with several top conductors and on some challenging bits repertoire" but is that enough to pass notability as a musician? There may be thousands of opera singers who work with top conductors, and they may not all receive significant coverage in independent sources. Do other opera singers of a similar fame and stature to Radner have Wikipedia articles? As I said above, I have absolutely no opinion on this matter, this is not an attempt to argue for deletion, I merely think the question should be asked. It's always tempting to throw together articles on people who have been in the news, as for example Faye TurneyFaye Turney, a few years ago, but it's not always appropriate. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Amakuru, i have a feeling you expect a reply from me, since you addressed me, correct? i do not know what reply you expect. here's what I see: you posed questions in subjunctive. these are rhethoric in character. you insist to have no opinion, but you clearly expressed an opinion, twice now, doubting Radner's notability. i am not trained in rhethoric and hence am unable to respond adequately. I see that four people have independently replied to you and tried to diffuse your concern.(cookieMonster,Charles01 and I never met before). in the 2 weeks since then the article was vetted by 2 reviewers for GA and passed. Since that several more and experienced editors, (check their userpages) etc came through. Unlike you they copy edited the article, flagged and tagged  and questioned things, but none questioned notability.  
I fail to see how this section helps the article that is here, now, present. i suggest, if my reply does not help you, to pose the question at the teahouse.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, Wuerzele. I see your point, and I don't expect any more comment from you, apologies for asking again. As long as you guys are satisfied that she is notable musically, that's fine. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello. There is a disbute about her birthdate. According to her management website, she was born May 7, 1981. But according to the New York Times, she was 34 years old when she passed away, which would make her not born in May, and according to Opera Online, she was born on January 1, 1981 (if so, she would be 34, like the New York Times said).
I decided to use May 7, 1981 as her birthdate, because that's what her opera management website said. If you have questions, please reply to me. Thanks.

New York Times source, claiming she was 34 when she passed away
Opera online, claiming she was born on January 1, 1981
Her opera mangement website, saying she was born on May 7, 1981.
Regards. CookieMonster755 (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

CookieMonster755, Thanks for bringing it up and assembling links. I was aware of the issue - saw the edits going back and forth on the page- but hadnt had time to look into it.
the German 'Focus' claims she was 33 years
German tabloid 'Bild' claims she was 33 years- has the first picture of her with husband and baby that I ve seen.
NYT artsbeat shows a correction that she wasnt 34, but 33.
I suspect operaonline has sloppy data entry: 1/1/81 looks like a default date; and their Austrian nationality info is obviously wrong. So I agree with you to use May 7, and hope that settles it.--Wuerzele (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Opps, Wuerzele, I added that she was of Austrian ethnicity, which an article from the Daily Mail said she was of German Nationality, but had Austrian ethnicity. If you feel like that may be disputed, feel free to remove that category. CookieMonster755 (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for mentioning, i saw you added it and wondered what your source is. Is Daily Mail not a rather unreliable source? not sure.--Wuerzele (talk) 01:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Also, Dutch Wikipedia removed my edit, saying that May 7 is not her birthdate, and infact is January 1. I mentioned it on the nl:Overleg:Maria Radner, on Dutch Wikipedia, and an editor reverted it. The media always gets incorrect information, I would trust her management website more. and besides, like you mentioned, NYT fixed their mistake. I will try to get the resolved on Dutch Wikipedia. Regards. CookieMonster755 (talk) 23:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

oh, sorry for you, CookieMonster755. regards, --Wuerzele (talk) 01:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Charles01 I like your format tweak !- i've never seen a quote boxed up like that. it shortens the previously long unlinked passage in the death section. 
as far as a better translation for "bescheiden": interesting that you've thought of that. I've always used the word humble, well aware of its awkwardness, and felt terribly outdated and ill-adapted to modern US society with it; it feels like a term more used in connection with religious texts. I can live with 'grounded' suggested by Charles01, but I dont think its interchangeable with humble and unassuming; some feel a connotation with lower class swinging in it. I would prefer "unassuming" because I think its meaning fits best. what do Gerda Arendt or CookieMonster755 and others think ? --Wuerzele (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

If we have to translate, I think unassuming is best, however a long word. Wish we could still ask Yngvadottir or Marrante. What's meant is that she was the opposite of a diva, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I like your proposed idea Wuerzele, and think it would be fine. CookieMonster755 (talk) 05:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

DABKV has renamed the last section before death by adding "and Final  Years". 
Radner's time from 2009-2015 was her continued ascent at the opera firmament, (?marrying) becoming a mother, ie the opposite of knowingly living her last years. For me the description doesn't fit. One could as easily write "Career and motherhood  (2009–2015)" (please note no capitalization DAKBV per WP:MOS). I feel it is not necessary and sounds judgmental, anticipating death unnecessarily. If someone dies after a decade of suffering it may be appropriate because the person is knowingly living his last years, in her case it came out of the blue.
Since you are a brand-new wikipedian, I don't want to revert  you (which is the law of the land as WP:BRD and can be used for bold edits like this), but rather discuss. What do you , what do others think? --Wuerzele (talk) 05:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Wuerzele — "And final years" should be removed. It does not sound good at all. I think "Career (2009-2015)" sounded fine. However, it would be nice if we knew more about her personal life, like when she got married, etc. If we did have information like that, than I would like to change it to your suggested title "Career and motherhood (2009-2015)" or if we had more information about her marriage, and personal life, we could make a new section called "Personal life". Just a thought though. CookieMonster755 (talk) 05:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
thanks CookieMonster755 for sharing your thoughts. agree, we cant write more on her personal life right now. I dont want to/wouldn't rename that section, I just mentioned alternatives as a point to rationally argue my position to DABKV rather than say WP:IDONTLIKE it.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Wuerzele — Okay, I guess we can leave the section named as it is for now. I will try to find more about her personal life if I can, but details are very rare and hard to find at the moment. CookieMonster755 (talk) 05:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Michael Bednarek I saw you added some wikilinks to the publishers in the references. I' ve always wondered about that, but never read anything about it. Is there an official WP guidance  on that ?  could you please reply (if you know) ? 
What do others say?
Another question whats the rationale for overwriting news with works in the refformat?--Wuerzele (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The general principle for creating links is no different between the body of the article and the reference section. I think a link to publications will by itself establish some credibility. The difference between |publisher= and |work= is explained at {{cite news}}, {{cite web}}, and similar; in short, newspaper titles should use |work= which will italicise it, too. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Michael Bednarek, Thanks for your reply. I see now that the wikilinking of news sources in ref is your personal preference. You may overwrite my style, but I do not agree with you, that this is helpful. It creates a sea of blue in the ref section. Also when creating, you do not know if it has been linked before, so this practice tends to overlink in my experience, people also link publishers and authors. What you call authoritatively "The general principle..." is no guidance for this situation.
As far as the difference between work and publisher (I am well aware of it): I asked what your rationale is for overwriting my parameters |news= with |work= in ref format? |news= although more specific than the generic work is equivalent and italicizes just as well. This is explained at Help:Citation Style 1. I found nothing about that at {{cite news}}. Thanks.--Wuerzele (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
"The general principle" I was referring to is the section WP:MOSLINK#Principles. Wikilinks to authors and publications are generally useful (except for special cases like Renée Fleming's article to The New York Times); papers like WAZ, FAZ, even Der Spiegel, do not fall into this category.
I can't find any instance where I've overwritten your |news= with |work=; in fact, I don't know in which template |news= exists and I can't remember ever having seen it. I did change some instances of |publisher= to |work=, inline with Template:Cite news/doc, mainly to provide a full name of the paper and to italicise it. In that process, I missed the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Feel free to point out instances where I used |work= incorrectly. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Wuerzele — I have opened a peer review for Maria Radner. This peer review will have editors (who have edited Maria Radner's article) to make and talk about suggestions we can make for this article. The reason why I opened this peer review, is to collaborate and make imporvements to this article, so I can nominate it for a Good article review, and hopefully pass it as a good article. Please chime in here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Maria Radner/archive1 and lets talk about improving the article. If you have other editor friends who may have suggestions in improving, growing, or fixing this article so we can nominate as a good article, please invite them! Thank you! CookieMonster755 (talk) 00:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Closed peer review. CookieMonster755 (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
why?--Wuerzele (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Wuerzele — I thought we could address issues here, and I think the article could be nominated for GA status without a peer review. I can open it up again if you like. What do you think? Cheers. CookieMonster755 (talk) 04:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Cheerful CookieMonster755, I am ignorant as to peer review, which is why I asked, I dont know who, when and how one can nominate for GA status. I ve never done any of it and you appear to know much more about this. I just write articles, so please lead the way; what needs to be addressed? --Wuerzele (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Don't bother about it Wuerzele  I opened it without thinking. I think the article is fine, and actually coming along great. I nominated it as a GA article, which you can read more about GA articles and nomination here: WP:GA. Cheers my friend! CookieMonster755 (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The recently added pronunciation of her surname is unnecessary. That's not the German pronunciation, and for native English speakers it is just as unnecessary as a pronunciation for her 1st name, "Maria", would be. There should either be a German pronunciation or none. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Please add a German pronunciation of her name Michael Bednarek. I already have an editor recording an audio pronunciation of her name, and will add it to the article soon. Cheers. CookieMonster755 (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks for your opinion, Michael Bednarek. Could you or anybody else change it to what you think the German pronunciation of her name is ? Since it differs from the English/ American/ Australian one,  I fail to see how it is "unnecessary for a native speaker".--Wuerzele (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you Wuerzele. CookieMonster755 (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Michael: the added pronunciation is how someone English would pronounce it, - no need to add that because that is how someone English would do without the clutter. I write about many German subjects, never added pronunciation. Imagine how you would react to your own name in that language. Her name is short and pronounced normally, - I would prefer to get to the dates of life and death immediately. Sad that she can't say her name, as here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
There is no recognised English pronunciation of "Radner", and the average English-speaking reader will have no difficulty to pronounce it, that's why the English IPA transliteration is unnecessary. The German pronunciation seems trivial to me, but German: [ˈraːdnər] should be close, although given her Austrian background, it might well be [ˈʀaːdnər]. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Michael Bednarek — I would go with the Austrian pronunciation, because her parents are from Austria. What do you think on the matter? CookieMonster755 (talk) 02:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I think that providing a pronunciation is unnecessary. Yet, unlike Carolin Reiber (German in-joke), we don't know how Radner pronounced her name, so the trilled R would amount to WP:CRYSTAL or WP:SYNTH. Further, I'm not sure I picked the correct IPA symbols – maybe experts like User:Kwamikagami or User:Peter238 would be required. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not an expert (far from it actually), but thank you.
- Neither of German pronunciation dictionaries I own (i.e. Max Mangold - Das Aussprachewörterbuch and Eva Krech et al. - Deutsches Aussprachewörterbuch) provides the IPA for this name.
- I don't know whether the first vowel should be short or long.
- ⟨d⟩ should, indeed, be voiced.
- Most of the time, Standard German of Germany realizes /r/ as uvular fricative/approximant [ʁ]. For sources, go to German_phonology#Consonants. I think I did a pretty good job at expanding that section last year.
- The [ər] pronunciation of the unstressed ⟨er⟩ ending sounds Swiss, but it is also a part of Bühnendeutsch. In Standard German of Germany and Austria, it is pronounced as a low schwa [ɐ].
- Therefore, the correct transcription is [ˈʁaːdnɐ], if the first vowel is long. If it is short, then it's [ˈʁadnɐ]. Peter238 (talk) 04:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Peter238, are you able to add the correct IPA to the article, or should we just not have a IPA altogether? CookieMonster755 (talk) 04:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
As I already said, it's either [ˈʁaːdnɐ] or [ˈʁadnɐ]. I'm sure about everything but the length of the first vowel. Peter238 (talk) 04:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I vote for no IPA, not essential, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
While there indeed should be no English IPA in this article, German IPA transcription is completely appropriate. Peter238 (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Peter238, please add the German IPA. I also agree that the German one would be appropriate in the article. What so you others think? German IPA or no IPA? Lets get this discussion rapped up. Thank you everybody for helping out! CookieMonster755 (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I already said that I don't know the length of the first vowel. It is probably long, but I'm not sure. We need native speakers of German to confirm this, then we can add the IPA. Peter238 (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Maybe somebody could refer this discussion to the Germany WikiProject. Also, I have an editor who is doing an audio pronunciation of her name. Maybe they can help or give advise. CookieMonster755 (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Here's the answer: the first vowel is long (see below), so the correct IPA is [ˈʁaːdnɐ]. Peter238 (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the remark about her engagement in Hagen belongs later, certainly not before finishing school, but where? Probably after voice training? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 Done--Wuerzele (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

How about Rhenish carnival and other trivia in personal life? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
ok, since none of the gentlemen is replying i as the author of this will reply: I think it rounds out the picture of her, singing,  preparation for the earth to spring forth, karaoke. As someone who loves fasnet and having spent formative years in Cologne, ehem, I d say it aint that trivial either. it underlines what you said above in the section above/translation of bescheiden: she was bodenstaendig, the opposite of a diva. --what other trivia that I mentioned are you unhappy with ? the karaoke? these vignettes say more to me than what exact sequence of concerts there was, or the singing competitions or whatever else I am spending way too much time verifying right now, polishing for the show, the GA review, to be honest, Gerda.--Wuerzele (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Can we say "husband" if we say wife? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I saw you put wife in. I have commented on this topic in general above in the GA review replying to Jacedc so I await input from others. So far, to me it looks like nobody cares. As someone who's at home in the US and Germany and "lives" these words, I d stress that the terms husband and wife are quite specific in the US, and are not equal to Mann und Frau. even in Britain people'd say common-law wife / common-law husband and when in doubt, boyfriend / girlfriend. By translating the German source 'Mann' with husband a reader could assume there was marriage. I dont know that (do you?). on the contrary: all circumstantial evidence I assembled points to the fact that they werent.
Now, oddly, folks here in the US use the word 'man' in the sense of 'Mann' (like in: she found the man of her life, I wanna be your man), so you might say that, but the same isnt true for 'woman', (there is no "she just wanted to be his woman") which sounds ...well, stilted, and I really think on the surface its mostly laziness in pronounciation (2 syllables) that these words arent used on the same level, so that babe or wife (being one syllable) are the nearest equivalent and the counterpart of 'man' in the sense of 'Mann'. But any German will understand that neither babe, nor wife, nor girl are the same as 'Frau'. It's something there's no word for in the U.S. It's something in the middle, stripped of the age characteristics (as in babe/girl), independent of a civil or religious definition of attachment (wife), free of class (as in lady), not mere biology (as in female) and not mere courtesy (as in Mrs). It's weird, but so is culture. So this is some of the stuff prohibiting me from an audacious translation of Mann and Frau here.--Wuerzele (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
"die Frau des Versicherungsmitarbeiters Sascha S." has correctly been translated to "the wife of ..." (not by me). If I didn't miss recent language changes, "die Frau" means "wife", not "partner" (which would be "Partnerin" or "Lebensgefährtin"), and never "woman". I was only asking, and am always ready to learn. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
This clearly says husband in English. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Fine now, Jacedc, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: and everyone. A GOCE request has been made relating to your comment in the GA review. I'll do it unless someone else beats me to it, but it will be a day or three before I can start. Please don't initiate a GAR yet. --Stfg (talk) 07:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Stfg, thanks for being willing to take this on. My concern was that the article would remain indefinitely a GA with prose that was clearly below GA standards. So long as a GOCE request has been made, meaning that this issue is being addressed, I'm fine with proceeding without a GAR, since the necessary work will be done and the article's prose brought up to the proper level. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Stfg thank you ! BlueMoonset thanks for watching. your concern "that the article would remain indefinitely a GA...", concerns me, since no article remains indefinitely anything. My concern remains, that you alone have said and keep stressing that "the prose was clearly below GA standards" and that the use of gerunds, even double gerunds, nominalizations and passive sentence construction being displayed here on this talk page, and -as opposed to an article- will indeed remain here indefinitely. This form of prose is being addressed by WP:MOS at the proper level. So long as a note has been made, meaning that, this issue is being understood and may be proceeding away from use here, I am fine. --Wuerzele (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Stfg for your time to improve this article! CookieMonster755 (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the nice comments, everyone. I've started, and will list any difficulties here to ask for your help in resolving them. I sign each bullet separately so you can thread comments to them.

Lede: "Possessing the "rare pitch of a true alto",[4]": this is a very complimentary statement, and the source is Italartist Austroconcert Kulturmanagement GmbH, an agency and therefore not an independent source. I don't think such a statement can be made and based on such a promotional source, and especially not in Wikipedia's voice. --Stfg (talk) 14:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Early life and education: Why is having difficulties with maths relevant? --Stfg (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Vocal education: where does the source state that Michaela Krämer considered Radner to be a mezzo-soprano? --Stfg (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Never mind, it was in another ref, so fixed it. --Stfg (talk) 20:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
In the GAN, the comment that the sentence "In 2003 Radners mother died after a long illness" should have a comma after 2003 is an urban myth, as a sampling of the links you get from Googling "comma after prepositional phrase" will reveal. It's not against the law, but it had been applied inconsistently, and I've removed such commas as they seem rather clunky. No objection to reinstating them if preferred, if done consistently. --Stfg (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm done, and thanks to RHM22 for some very helpful edits. I agree that the GA pass was somewhat premature and I'm still slightly uncomfortable about it:

The career section is like a resume. It suffers badly from being a timeline rather than a discussion of her work. It might have been better to divide it along the lines of: start of professional career and major subsequent events (not literally everything); Erda; other operatic repertoire; concert repertoire. A greater proportion of commentary would have improved it too, both press reviews and any commentary you can find about voice characteristics and performance style. Were there no press reviews of her Met debut, for example?
The personal life section is more like a memorial. It is very emotional, which is appropriate in obituaries but isn't encyclopedic. Small parts of the quotes there might be useful to tell about her personality, and Karen Cargill's "Her voice had a beautiful bronzed hue, full and round" might be useful, but most of these quotes are just expressions of emotion and should be pared right back.
Kind regards to all, --Stfg (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Stfg, thank you for an excellent copyedit, and thank you also for your comments about facets of the article that still need work. I imagine that future editors will take them to heart and continue to improve the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Maria Radner was an opera singer known internationally. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Opera/Article_guidelines#Infoboxes, Biographical infoboxes for opera singer and opera composer biographies are not currently recommended by this project. The consensus among project participants has been that the use of the available biographical infoboxes, and especially those designed for non-classical musicians is often counterproductive. The information that can be given below the image in these boxes is often anachronistically labelled, not sufficiently flexible, and can lead to misleading oversimplification and ambiguity. This position similar to that of Classical Music Project and the Composers Project. So does this policy apply to Mrs. Radner? Should we have an infobox or not? CookieMonster755 📞 ✉ ✓ 21:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe Gerda Arendt can help? CookieMonster755 📞 ✉ ✓ 21:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, we should have an infobox. Compare Gwyneth Jones (soprano) and all (the many) opera singers I wrote about ;) - Of course the info should be correct, no "disinfo". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Agree, as per Gerda. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, my kind friend, mistress Gerda Arendt. You always have wonderful points regarding these matters  CookieMonster755 📞 ✉ ✓ 22:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Most of my points are by others, though, we have to thank RexxS for Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes: a refutation (2014) ;) - thank you for listening, different from those active on Jean Sibelius, for example, where only Martin illuminated by the power of humour ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Maria Radner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150409043431/http://www.opernnetz.de/seiten/news/Maria_Radner_Zerban_150331.html to http://www.opernnetz.de/seiten/news/Maria_Radner_Zerban_150331.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150327235207/http://wagnerportal.de/magazin/aktuelles-und-veranstaltungen/veranstaltungskalender-richard-wagner-museum to http://wagnerportal.de/magazin/aktuelles-und-veranstaltungen/veranstaltungskalender-richard-wagner-museum
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402185012/http://www.rsh-duesseldorf.de/News.28.0.html?&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=520&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=3&cHash=63fd0e16ec6a0cc7be901abef5642f7d to http://www.rsh-duesseldorf.de/News.28.0.html?&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=520&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=3&cHash=63fd0e16ec6a0cc7be901abef5642f7d
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150419030153/http://metopera.org/metopera/news/features/news-flash/remembering-maria-radner to http://www.metopera.org/metopera/news/features/news-flash/remembering-maria-radner
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)