Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/L'ange de Nisida/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:26, 7 February 2010 [1].

---

L'ange de Nisida

Nominator(s): Andy Walsh (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/L'ange de Nisida/archive1

This is a shorter but fascinating article on a little-known but important opera by Gaetano Donizetti. It started as a whim to make a red link blue; soon, I was digging up everything I could find about this never-performed work. It's been thoroughly researched in books, journals, and at a major music library. I am confident I have discovered everything scholarly that's been written about L'ange. It's also had a thorough Peer Review by Brianboulton. I hope you enjoy reading about this interesting piece of opera history. Andy Walsh (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments You have two Wintons in the refs, but the notes don't provide a year to differentiate between sources... Oi, are we allowed to have Synopsis sections with no refs? In other words, are synopses a special case? • Ling.Nut 04:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed the Winton, thanks. The standard for Synopses is that they don't require a source; see for example Agrippina (It has footnotes, but no actual refs). In the case of L'ange, no one has seen it and no act-by-act synopsis is available. My only source of information was Ashbrook's description of the plot, presumably from his examination of the autograph in Paris. --Andy Walsh (talk) 05:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. Stop me if I'm wrong, but if there is any rationale at all for having no refs in synopses, it would be that the info is "common knowledge". I can certainly see where a synopsis Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet" would not need refs. In this particular case, however, the synopsis is far from common knowledge (as you just stated). I would think that giving Ashbrook credit in the first sentence of the section ("Ashbrook states that blah blah..") would be appropriate. • Ling.Nut 05:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Good suggestion. It's not like anyone can dispute him and go see it for themselves. Attributed. --Andy Walsh (talk) 07:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support: A fascinating piece of opera archaeology, on which I commented at length at peer review. One might say that this is Donizetti's equivalent of Beethoven's Leonore, the eclipsed forerunner of a more famous work. At any rate, I have never seen so much material gathered about L'ange de Nisida in one place, and this strikes me as being illustrative of the true function of Wikipedia; you can get information here that is not easily available elsewhere.

On Ling's point, the general rationale for no citations in the plot synopsis is that the work itself is deemed to be the source for a plain plot summary. It may be that in this case, with the work unperformed and (I assume) the original libretto unavailable, we are reliant on Ashbrook to tell us the plot, but this is a special circumstance. Brianboulton (talk) 11:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comments For the synopsis... I'm not sure about the current "Ashbrook summarizes:". It's rather inelegant. I see no reason why this attribution can't be made as a footnote. Also, it might be worth mentioning in the article that a copy of the libretto is held in the library of the Fondazione Donizetti in Bergamo [2] and (I think) reprinted in The Donizetti Society Journal N. 7, Donizetti and France, 2002.[3] - Voceditenore (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps add further reading? There are two articles available the Donizetti Society Journal above:

Fulvio Stefano Lo Presti, "Sylvia prima di Léonor (con interferenze di un duca)"

William Desniou, "Donizetti et L'Ange de Nisida"

Also if there's any info on the singers who had been engaged to sing in the defunct premiere, that would be a useful addition too. I think I saw a mention of one or two in my perigrinations around Google Books. Voceditenore (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support now that my suggestions above have been implemented. This is not only fascinating subject, it thoroughly covers the material available in English sources striking the right balance between readability and scholarship, a valuable addition to Wikipedia. There is perhaps more detail available in Italian and French sources, but these have been added to the article to help the reader research further. I've taken the liberty of adding two more which were listed in Cassaro's Gaetano Donizetti: a guide to research.

Something you might want to consider, but it is by no means necessary, is to put the footnote about Juliette Bourgeois as an introduction to the roles table. Something like:

"As the opera never got to the rehearsal stage, little is known about the intended cast. However, in a letter to his close friend Tommaso Persico, Donizetti expressed his desire to give the title role to Juliette Bourgeois, a temperamental soprano who requested a large sum of money to perform in France. (She was later to create the title role in Donizetti's La fille du régiment)"

Incidentally, by all accounts, e.g. [4], [5], [6], Bourgeois was actually French, although she performed primarily in Italy and under the name "Giulietta Borghese" (and variants). It's worth double-checking Ashbrook to see if he actually says she was Italian as you currently have in the footnote. As you can see in my suggested wording above, I've left the nationality out, perhaps the way to go as it sounds a bit odd to say "a temperamental French soprano who requested a large sum of money to perform in France." Voceditenore (talk) 09:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a great suggestion—I have converted the footnote into intro text to the Roles table. I checked Ashbrook and the wording indeed suggests she was a soprano "in Italy" but doesn't mention the nationality. As such, I took that out as you suggested. Thanks again for your insightful remarks. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Response to Voceditenore - Thanks so much for your input! I have performed the following changes in response to your comments. On the issue of the singers: I found that Donizetti hoped to give the role of Sylvia to Juliette Bourgeois, and I represented that in a footnote to the Roles table. Is that sufficient? I didn't not find any other information on who he wanted, since they never even began rehearsals.
  • I've changed the way the synopsis is attributed per your suggestion. I hope to avoid putting the note after the heading, which I've seen in practice in other articles and I find it visually noisy.
  • The transcribed libretto (both at the Foundation and in the Journal) is now mentioned.
  • Further reading section is added with the Italian-language articles.

--Andy Walsh (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Really well done, just got a couple of nitpicks, outside of that, it meets criteria well.

1. The entire "context" portion is lacking images. This might make it a little better is the elegance department.

   #Roles section: Can we have a little more specification on the use of citations? The only citations in the third column of the chart. Does Ashbrook list all of these? If so, I'd have the citation post in all three columns.

   #""[I]t was expanded from an unperformed three-act French opera, L'ange de Nisida."" - for clarification, what is meant by [I]t?

2. "L'ange de Nisida (The Angel of Nisida) is an opera semiseria in four acts by Gaetano Donizetti, from a libretto by Alphonse Royer and Gustave Vaëz." - Might want to add the place where all three are from, because the play may be from France, although people may not know that if they are or not.

   #Could we find a place to split two paragraphs in Contract and cancellation?

Outside of those, you're good to go (although I wish this would at least be a GA).Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 22:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Response to Mitch - Thanks for your review! Some replies:
  • I'm afraid any image I add would be gratuitous at this point. I did add a view of Nisida but even that is just there for idle interest.
  • I added the citations to the Roles table as requested.
  • The introductory phrase to the quotation mentioned specifies which opera it is in reference to.
  • I believe it would be unneeded detail to list the nationality of the composer and librettists, and it doesn't seem to be a convention in other similar featured articles; hopefully we can see eye-to-eye on that.
  • I would prefer not to split any paragraphs in Contract and cancellation; the first is exclusively about the contract and I can't find a way of splitting it that wouldn't cause an odd hiccup.

Thanks for your support, and I hope I have resolved and/or answered your items to your satisfaction. --Andy Walsh (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

As for the nationality, I think we could use a reword of the sentence, something just sounds weird.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 23:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll think on it and try coming up with a compromise. --Andy Walsh (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Update: I added a line about Donizetti's nation of origin to the lead and the first para of the body. I don't think Royer and Vaëz are relevant; hopefully this is an acceptable compromise. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Further update: I have added a public domain image of a souvenir libretto from La Favorite to the Reworking section. I hope this resolves your concern about further images needed. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Support Appears to be comprehensive, and is certainly well-written. Maralia (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Images: The images of Donizetti and the libretto have credible public domain (copyright expired) rationales. But the view of Nisida, which has the same rationale, does not seem to have the age implied by its template. (Author's life plus 70 years; even if the author died right after taking this image, the image would have to be from 1940, wouldn't it? It doesn't look it.) --JN466 04:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• You're right. I found this image on the Italian-language Wikipedia and uploaded it to Commons. I didn't look carefully at the Italian public domain notice that was there. I assumed it was a general public domain notice, but it actually claims public domain due to expiration of copyright. Therefore, that's what's translated to Commons. I've replaced it with a CC-by-SA 2.0 image I found on Flickr. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I was just going to say there are possible replacements in commons: [7] --JN466 05:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Oh, found one I like better. Thanks. :) --Andy Walsh (talk) 05:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Images okay now. --JN466 11:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support, at least on the prose, which is excellent. Sharp, concise, and still engaging. Bravo. ceranthor 20:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.