The other London opera company, the ENO, already has a Featured Article, and it seems to me that the Royal Opera, based at Covent Garden, ought to have one as well. This company has a shorter history than its rival establishment, having been formed from scratch at the end of the Second World War, developing to top international standards by the mid-1960s. The article has had a thorough peer review, with later supplementary comments and proof-reading, from several Wiki-colleagues, to whom I am most grateful. As always, comments on balance, referencing, images, prose etc will be gladly received. – Tim riley (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having already waxed lyrical about this excellent article when it was submitted for GA status,
I have now taken the liberty of editing down one or two notes which provided overprecise estimates of present day monetary values [2][3]. Maybe I should have posted here first; if so, my apologies. In line with common practice and in the interests of intuitive reading I removed an average earnings statistic even though it does in fact provide pertinent information; you may prefer to restore that estimate (after rounding, the 2010 figure would be about £10).
Not sure about the second "for" in this sentence in the Beginnings subsection: "Other international stars who were willing to re-learn their roles in English for the company in its early years included Kirsten Flagstad and Hans Hotter for The Valkyrie".
In the penultimate paragraph of 1960s, the statement "...in 1964 the company made its first appearance at the Proms in London, in a concert performance of Otello" may be open to misinterpretation. While Otello does seem to have been the company's first Proms performance of a complete opera, according to information available on the BBC Proms website, that wasn't the first time the orchestra [4] or the chorus [5] had actually appeared at the Proms (eg[6]).
In the third sentence of 2002 to date, beginning "As at 2012...", I'm sure there's a good reason for the use of the past tense, but to my ears at least it sounds a bit strange.
This is to comply with the injunction to avoid time-limited material. The present tense would be out of date all too soon, but as drafted the statement will be correct next year and to the ending of the world. Tim riley (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An appealing idea, but WP is agin external links that duplicate links in the reference section. Perhaps this one, being generic, where the refs drill down deeper into the same site, would be all right. Opinions welcome on this. Tim riley (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I support your reasoning; this pointer is so useful it should not count as duplication, imo. Otherwise, fatta la legge, trovato l'inganno, and perhaps link to one of the advanced search pages (eg[7])? MistyMorn (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does Kasper Holten[8], the newly appointed Director of Opera [9], perhaps deserve a mention in this update? I see his predecessor, Elaine Padmore, didn't get a look in either. But maybe there's an encyclopaedic reason for that? MistyMorn (talk) 12:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have a problem with the "directors of opera", as I can't find a reliable source for all of them since the first one. GuillaumeTell has suggested adding them all to the table at the foot, and I'd like to if a reliable source can be found. Tim riley (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, a quick scout around suggests that the only way right now might be to glean them individually from the pages of some of your sources (something I'm not going to suggest!). Unfortunately, the house archives are currently closed to the public. Maybe one for after the FA cup? MistyMorn (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in how multi-author works are notated
My precept (and I hope practice) is to cite dual authors as "X and Y" and triple + authors as "Z et al." I think I have followed that. Tim riley (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a drive-by comment, but it would be nice to add more images of the actual building (see the commons link I added). I was trying to remember if I'd been inside the building before (turns out I had!) Very beautiful establishment. Ruby2010/201320:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some are available, but this article is about the company, rather than the building which has its own article here. I am wary of blurring that distinction too much. Tim riley (talk) 07:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose and comprehensiveness. I had the privilege of reviewing this at PR, and my concerns were answered and I see only improvement since. Actually, I've seen the Royal Opera twice, once in the old Covent Garden, once in the new. Tim has attained a similar improvement, at considerably less cost.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to a captivating performance: the order of appearance of famous singers in the lead is not obvious. The conductors are chronological, singers likely the same? But at that point I would also understand by alphabet. I admire Elisabeth Schwarzkopf a lot, but think the average reader may be more familiar with Maria Callas. Hotter and Flagstad are mentioned together in the article, how about the lady first? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After some pondering I thought that alphabetical order was best, and so, as it happens, it's ladies first for Callas, though not for Schwarzkopf. Tim riley (talk) 14:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that the word "opera" occurs three times in the first line, three times in the second and twice more in the remainder of the paragraph. That's a lot of opera. I see the difficulty, because the word is in the present and former names of the company, and in the name of the other London company. But I wonder if a bit of tweaking could get rid of one or two?
Comments, this is a great read, just minor things I picked up with regards to sourcing:
For Ref 108, if you want I found a direct link to The Independent article. Same with 103.
Having had to reroute innumerable links to The Times after R. Murdoch erected his pay-wall I am chary of linking to other papers' sites lest they follow suit. I have more faith that Newsbank will continue to be accessible to WP readers. Tim riley (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, never thought that way. The Independent will be going paywall for non-UK readers in the coming months, so that could be problematic.
It should be made clear that Newsbank is the 'publisher' in all the references you have retrived stories from that site. So the newspaper becomes the 'work'. – Lemonade51 (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm slightly surprised at that. I think of Newsbank as the platform (cf. JSTOR, Gale, Chadwick et al) and the copyright owners as the publishers. Tim riley (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I did double check some articles on Newsbank just now and it does clearly state the copyrights underneath.
Support Read through this yesterday at lunch and found it as I've said above, a great article. Prose shows clarity for one and there is a great selection of images. Ideally this should make the reader want to know more about the Royal Opera – preferably seeing it first hand. Alas I haven't but shall make a note of it in the coming year. – Lemonade51 (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, both for your support and your helpful comments above. I didn't know about The Independent's plans, and I'll ask non-UK colleagues to check for blocked links in other articles when the paywall you mention comes into effect.
Support - A few months ago, I felt compelled to visit the building to learn more about it's archetecture. However, my attention was soon drawn to the RO instead. The pamphlets were brief and uninformative and I left feeling as if I needed to know more. Then comes this article. One should print this out instead to take round. It's far more engaging and whole lot more informative. Another great article Mr.Riley. -- Cassianto (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
