This is an archive of past discussions with User:Brianboulton. 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.
I've followed up on the "tied" feedback replacing the one you pointed out and I removed another as well. Thanks for the point and for taking the time to review the article. I know you're very busy right now. Good luck with Rinaldo for Feb 24. --SkotyWATC20:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Brian - thank you so much for your comments on the Tillson Harrison FAC. I was worried that I wouldn't get any comments on the FAC for a while there!! Anyway, I have addressed the feedback you left on the nomination page. In short, while you did have a couple of good, valid points ("tell-all account"... not sure why I wrote that, to be honest!), the statements that appeared to not be backed up by a source were indeed verifiable. For your convenience, I have included an inline citation directly after the statements in question for the purposes of this FAC so you can double-check. Thanks again for your feedback! ArcticNight14:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Delius
I would open a sockpuppet investigation - see WP:SPI and please ask if you have questions. What you left on my talk page would be a pretty good start for a SPI note. Ruhrfisch><>°°20:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I will wait and see how the editor in question acts, before invoking this procedure. I have meanwhile delayed te FAC nom on Delius for 24 hours. Brianboulton (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I will be glad to do a source review for Delius. SPI is for editors who are editing in an abusive way with multiple accounts, so if there is no harm being done, I also do not see the need for an SPI. May take me a day or two on the review, Ruhrfisch><>°°19:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Warmest thanks - it has been a pleasure to collaborate with you, and I hope it will not be the last article we collaborate on. Tim riley (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Brianboulton, if you have the time would you be willing to do a source check for the U2 3D FAC? It is on it's second nomination, which has been restarted, and things look to be moving rather slowly on it. I know from previous FACs that you are fairly knowledgable about this aspect of the process, and if you have the time to give the article a check I'm sure it would be very much appreciated by the nominator. Cheers, Melicans (talk, contributions) 00:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I will get to it, but there is a bit of a queue for sources reviews at FAC at the moment, since I'm the only one doing them regularly (and I busy elsewhere, too). So there may be a wait of a day or two. Brianboulton (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
You are doing a fantastic job with this article Brian. Just letting you know, WP:WikiProject Opera guidelines for recording sections are to use the table I made. The only time they are not used in an opera article is if the table has been split off onto an opera discography page. Since it seemed un-neccesary to have the table with your excellent prose section, I went ahead and created the discography page for you at Rinaldo discography. Let me know if I can be of help to you in any way. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
That's fine. I don't always follow Opera Project guidelines exactly; they are not fixed rules. In this case, with a roles table and a list of musical numbers, another list in the article looked like one too many. But you seem to have found a solution. Your help thus far has been wonderful. Brianboulton (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Also, Brian, you do know you are headed dead into a logjam at TFA/R, with two other articles claiming 24 February, and Laser Brain putting up an opera in the nonspecific date slot. You might want to ask him if he would be willing to withhold that article for a month. Could be interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for drawing my attention to this. I have asked Andy to consider waiting on L'ange until Rinaldo's fate is sealed; he may oblige. I wish the other two had at least notified me of their claims to 24 February. It will be up to Raul to decide, with me, alas, in the Ross Perot slot. Brianboulton (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't know how I can help, other than to copyedit. Let me know when it is ready for that. I think Jets is in the clear now. Let no one say that getting an article to FA is easy, I almost gave up on that article twice, but it would have been letting The Writer 2.0 down.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
In view of your timetable I have ventured to do an interim proof-read. I've amended a clutch of typos, but there are two points I daren't touch. First, "castrato. This part was cut…" made me wince and might be rephrased for the over-sensitive; and "The various transformations of characters to thers' shapes, Price contends" defied my attempts to guess what it was supposed to say. (I am not well found in Handel operas – except for the bits pillaged by Sir Thomas for Love in Bath etc.) Like your other allies, I am happy to help in any way I can while you are getting the article done. Yours to command. Tim riley (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I just created an article on the aria "Lascia ch'io pianga" which previously redirected to Rinaldo. You've done a great job Brian and I think the article is now ready for peer review. Best.4meter4 (talk) 05:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again Brian for this wonderful article. It's too bad we're going to have to compete for the date. IHopefully luck will swing our way. Regaurdless, you can take pride in another superior opera article. I left a note at the opera project about the FAC. If you have any future opera FAs in mind let me know. I'll be happy to do more source digging for you. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I fixed some foreign wiki articles which were improperly going to Rinaldo instead of Rinaldo (opera). I also created a couple foreign wiki articles on the opera. You can now add 2 points for "widely covered" to your proposal. Best.4meter4 (talk) 08:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Delius memorial sculpture
That's a most impressive (and I think pleasing) piece of work in the image that Jappalang has so kindly tracked down and uploaded. (Jappalang really is a star!) Do you think we might use it instead of the Town Hall at the top of the article, or should we put it near the end of the biog section on the supposition that it belongs with the funerary stuff? My preference is for the former, but I am wholly biddable. Tim riley (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually I found and uploaded the image ;-) - I am nowhere as near as knowledgable as Jappalang on images, but agree Jappalang is a star. I assumed it would fit in the Legacy section along with a sentence on the sculpture. There are also non-free images of Delius' grave on Flickr; if you want I can ask the uploader if they would freely license them (for the last years section). Ruhrfisch><>°°18:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Good grief! I am covered in confusion. Please accept my apologies for getting muddled and my warmest thanks (and astronomical nomination) for your marvellous contributions. Tim riley (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
It is really no problem at all (please don't worry about it). I am glad to help out. Do you want me to ask about one of the grave pictures on Flickr? There are several images there, so I was going to ask one at a time, starting with the best one. Ruhrfisch><>°°18:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Can I add my thanks to Ruhrfisch, helpful as ever, for providing this. In contrast to Tim's view on positioning, to me it would seem odd to place what is effectively a memorial at the start of the article. The lower half of the article is lmage-starved, and the logical place for this, surely, is the Memorials and legacy section. I will do the necessary checks with Jappalang before posting it, however. Brianboulton (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I have retired behind a Japanese screen to stab myself in a Puccini-ish way, but my final words are to endorse Brian's suggestion in re placement. Tim riley (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think we need the sculpture and the grave, and the sculpture is I think the more appealing. If Jappalang gives it the thumbs down, then the grave would be a sensible alternative. Thanks anyway for finding it. Brianboulton (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
There is no problem with photographs of 3D works of art that are permenantly installed in United Kingdom (freedom of panorama per commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama#United Kingdom), provided the copyright holder of the work is acknowledged. I see no issues with this photograph since the location of the work is clearly stated and Hiscott is acknowledged as well. Jappalang (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello Brian, are you able to revisit this one at all? The last FAC failed in part because a commenter didn't come back to address my response - I would hate for something similar to happen again! Thanks, ArcticNight02:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello Brian - I've responded to your concern at the FAC for the Tillson Harrison article. I've also included something that might be important here - comments by Ealdgyth re the source's reliability at the article's last FAC. ArcticNight23:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes - thanks very much, but I agree that you and Tim deserve the lion's share of the credit and glory. Let me know when Rinaldo is at FAC and I will be glad to do a source review. Ruhrfisch><>°°02:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Pipe Dream
Thanks for the good wishes regarding the Met tonight. I may try to sneak a cell phone shot or two but I suspect there's a reason why articles don't have such things. I guess the thing on the Pipe Dream plot is that it is difficult to say things which Hammerstein doesn't. I suspect that few had any doubt who saw the play that the Bear Flag was a whorehouse, but Hammerstein doesn't actually say it (leaving me with being not explicit enough on one side of things and too explicit on the "member" thing. (which I'm going to leave in at least for now). Do you have any suggestions? Can I offer parentheticals in a plot description, and if I do, should I source them?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll give this a little thought later. At the moment I'm busy on final polishings for Rinaldo which I may put up later tonight. Brianboulton (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
OK. I'm leaving for California on Friday (it is -8 C here in NY, I'm going out to do some shopping in a few anyway!) as soon as I see it up I'll jump in.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The Roses come for you
The Wars of the Roses Barnstar
Thank you for your comments and suggestions on the Battle of Towton, especially appreciated are your copy-editing and sources check. Your support was invaluable to recognising it as a Featured Article. Jappalang (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I will get to the FAC tonight, I just want to read it over again all in one pass, rather than choppily in review. Nixon in China 's first half was fairly good, I would say all of Act I, but sometime in Act II, it descended into weirdness, and stayed that way in Act 3. Adams conducted, and I know the music is brilliant, but ... I picked up the playbill and Opera News, both of which seem to have articles, though I did not read them. First time I've been to the Met in several years, it has not changed very much--Wehwalt (talk) 05:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I've skimmed both sources. There is very useful information, for example, on the musical techniques. I'm confident we have enough info, in combination with what you've put in your sandbox. You are probably not in the mood to do another opera, but when you are, I think we will be in business. Plus I have a subscription to the NY Times archives, which should be useful.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Sounds promising. It will probably be good for my soul if, after the rather frenetic Rinaldo, I do a non-opera article next, as a sort of rehab exercise, or maybe simply take a rest. I've no doubt you've plenty in your locker, and can slip in one (or two) meantime. I'll pencil in earlyish March for Nixon; I am looking forward to doing it, but in the right frame of mind. I'm sure I'll be ready by then. Brianboulton (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I may do a little work in my sandboxes in preparation. I owe about six reviews to people, I need to catch up on those before doing more writing. Right now I am really just guiding those R&H articles through. The King and I will be the last for a bit because the remaining three (Oklahoma!, South Pacific, and The Sound of Music) are much more complex articles because each had a significant cultural effect (to say nothing of the many revivals and recordings) and I need to secure additional references. I think I am going to go for the featured topic, but I may do Hammerstein's bio before finishing up the musicals.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Correct me if I am wrong (on the definition of autograph scores). Autograph scores are in the composer's own handwriting and contain his or her notes. This autograph typically serves as the exemplar from which the final published scores are copied (sans notes and other writings). The published scores are derivatives of Handel's music.
UK law favours awarding copyrights to handwriting and for unpublished works of art (excluding paintings and photographs), the copyright is until the end of 2039.[1] Hence, Handel's autograph score (a manuscript) would still be copyrighted in the UK to Handel's heirs (or entrusted estate) for Handel's notes in his handwriting as an unpublished work. The copyright in the US, however, would have expired since any work that has not been published before 1978 (abroad)/2002 (in the US) are judged on the 70-year pma by US law. The safest bet if you desire this manuscript to be in the article is to upload it to Wikipedia with the {{PD-Art|PD-Old}} template together with the {{Do not move to Commons}} and an explanation of why it could still be copyrighted in the UK as above.
If the desire is for the opera's music scores that can be available to all (i.e. uploaded to Commons), might I recommend looking at http://www.archive.org/stream/thirdortransitio00hulluoft#page/262/mode/2up? "Lascia ch’io pianga", "Il Tricerbero Umiliato", and the March are in there. Hullah died in 1884, so if it is argued that the printed version of these scores should be credited to him, his copyright would still have expired.
As for the libretto, no worry there. That should be a facsimile of or is the original 1711 publication itself.[2] The shelfmark is 1078.m.6.(8.), the title "Rinaldo. Opera. [With an English translation by A. Hill.] Ital. & Eng." and the system number 003165951. Jappalang (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much to both of you for these opportunities to improve the article. As to "Lascia", the autograph is perhaps more inteesting, but the Hullah would open it up to Commons, so maybe we should go for that. I'd be pleased if you would upload this and the libretto, and I'll fit them into then article. Brianboulton (talk) 11:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't know where to make up the links for the refs that were dead. I'll find a way, I always do.
Due to the typical format of discographies, I'm not sure if I want to divide the lead.
We at WP:Kylie are still in debate on which charts should be used, so not all of them are locked down and verified yet. But they will be before the article attempts WP:FA.
Hi, thanks for your initial sources review of this article. I think I have addressed your concerns, and User:Nigej has added more source information for those sources which he has provided to the article. Would you be able to revisit the review? Regards, Harriastalk17:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Rinaldo TFA
FYI, I started a topic here to see if Rinaldo can be promoted this week. However, even if it is, the current request for Feb 24 has an equal number of points (maybe 1 more actually) and a large number of supports. Interestingly, 100th anniversary and 300th anniversary are scored the same on the requests page. Raul may have to make a difficult choice between the two articles. Regardless, it has been remarkable to watch that article's rapid metamorphasis. Excellent work. --SkotyWATC17:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts on the FAC talkpage to promote the article's TFA case. However, for the reason given on that page, I've decided to not to seek the TFA place for 24 February and to ask Raul if he will give Rinaldo a date as soon as possible thereafter, within the period of the opera's initial run. Had the alternative not been a centenary, or had it not been the nominator's first go at TFA, I might have done differently, but in the circumstances I think this is the best thing to do. Brianboulton (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Congrats Brian on another FA! Thanks again for taking this project on. Hopefully the article will get a TFA soon. Are you aware that Rinaldo also gets 2 widely covered points and would therefore have 1 more point than the other nom for February 24? I understand why you might still choose to go for another date per your comment above. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Given with respect and admiration to Brianboulton for working so hard to get Rinaldo to FA in time for its 300th anniversary, then voluntarily giving up any claim to the actual date of the 300th anniversary TFA. Ruhrfisch><>°°22:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Congrats Brian! At least we'll be on the mainpage for 24 February in some places around the world. I hope you're happy with how things turned out. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Suggestion
Dear Featured Article machine. A suggestion for one of your next FACs: Philip Larkin. The article has been stable for a while (excepting a little 25th anniversary fluff last year) and those of us who have got the article to the state it is in now have pretty much gone as far as we can. There was a Peer Review a year or so ago, which left some sizeable issues that I'm sure would be within your capabilities. I believe that you contributed to the PR - mentioning that the Letters should have been used more? (Now there is also the Letters to Monica) I became a WP editor because I was embarrassed at the state the Larkin page was in and felt that there was something I could do about it. In turn I became embarrassed that I wasn't in a position to work through issues raised at the PR and bring the page up to FA standard, and would be delighted to see this important page brought up to the highest level. almost-instinct20:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
There is no possibility of this in the near future. You are mistaken if you think producing featured content is a mechanical process and that articles can be churned out at will. The articles I create or expand are in areas where I have a lot of background knowledge, a high level of interest and full access to reliable up-to-date sources. I have some knowledge of Larkin and his works, but to write confidently something of featured quality would require a lot of hard graft which I don't have time for at present. I have thought vaguely that some time I might write something on his Brunette Coleman phase, but that would be a year or two down the line. Brianboulton (talk) 11:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for replying. Still, it was worth my while asking. One day on WP I will find my Prince to take the Philip Larkin page to a higher level of which I can only dream. For the record, I don't think that producing featured content is a mechanical process: my salution was merely a light-hearted and awe-inspired reference to your fine record. Thank you again for your time, yours, almost-instinct22:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with AI shopping possible projects among the FA writers I think you've earned a break, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Rinaldo is an opera by George Frideric Handel composed in 1711, and was the first Italian language opera written specifically for the London stage. The libretto was prepared by Giacomo Rossi from a scenario provided by Aaron Hill, and the work was first performed at the Queen's Theatre in London's Haymarket. The story of love, battle and redemption set at the time of the First Crusade is loosely based on Torquato Tasso's epic poem Gerusalemme liberata ("Jerusalem Delivered"), and its staging involved many original and vivid effects. It was a great success with the public, despite negative reactions from literary critics hostile to the contemporary trend towards Italian entertainment in English theatres. Rinaldo was the most frequently performed during Handel's lifetime. However, after 1731 the opera was not staged for more than 200 years. Following a successful run at New York's Metropolitan Opera in 1984, performances and recordings of the work have become more frequent worldwide. Despite the lack of a standard edition, with its spectacular vocal and orchestral passages Rinaldo has been cited as one of Handel's greatest operas. Of its individual numbers the soprano aria "Lascia ch'io pianga" has become a particular favourite and is a popular concert piece. (more...)
You are welcome for the images. Feel free to add and remove as you desire. I was expecting the images to change as the article improves and will not be alarmed if any are altered or removed. Here are some scholarly sources that may aid you: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] Cheers.4meter4 (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Brianboulton. 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.
