Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of important operas

List of important operas[edit]

Well-constructed and well-organized list that is absolutely NPOV: the compilation method is well described and complies exactly with the previous precedent at the featured List of major opera composers. Highly useful and highly encyclopedic as well as being exhaustively annotated to reliable sources. Self-nomination - obviously, no one one person could have done all of that, though. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 15:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination seconded by a significant contributor. There are over 300 references to this list. --Folantin 15:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think this is well done and clearly shows its inclusion criteria. Rmhermen 00:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This list is very well done. However the footnotes.... while this is generally a perfectly acceptable way of doing citations, might I suggest using inline citations of the form (Viking, p123) at the end of the relevant sentence, rather than footnotes? It's just otehrwise you have this huge mass of footnotes at the end. Tompw (talk) 00:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that really such a major problem? So that we have to make over 300 changes? Nor would that work so well with the cites from Grove Online, where for obvious reasons page numbers are not given. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, fair enough. Tompw (talk) 12:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (I know nothing about opera...) Read Wikipedia:Avoid self-references and revise the lead and the "See also" section. The portraits should be standard sized thumbnails (i.e. remove the supplied dimensions to leave to reader's preferences). I'm somewhat uncomfortable with the comments for each opera. It reads like a rapid review of operas rather than an objective list. I see the list had a brush with deletion over OR issues. There are still a number of weasel words. I'd be happier with the opinions if I was sure they were widely held and uncontroversial. But instead, I can't help think that many comments are just personal opinions that the editors have chosen. For example: "Much of the music of Akhnaten is some of the most dissonant that Glass has composed." doesn't sound like a generous thing to say. Briefly looking up some sources, you could have written "The last part of Philip Glass' "Portrait-Trilogy" of operas." Stick to the facts and restrict opinion to the big things like an opera's position in history. Colin°^Talk 21:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But that isn't opinion. That's what our sources are telling us. When we reference things like "X's most popular opera" or "some of Y's most dissonant music" we are doing just that: referencing these statements to the reliable sources from which they come. There is no personal opinion involved whatsoever. Cheers, Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with you there. Comments of those in the field are fine to include, provided they are properly referenced, and where the comments become definate opinions, it is better to use the form "the critic David Cairns describes it as 'cinematic' ". However, I've been reading through the list, and I haven't found any commentry that isn't presented suitably. Also, I don't think this is WP:OR- it combining information from a range of sources in a carefully and clearly defined way, with references. (There were similar issues with List of major opera composers, which got promoted) Tompw (talk) 12:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just because the opinion comes from a referenced source doesn't stop it being opinion. As Tompw suggests, it should ideally be explicitly attributed to a third party (or group) unless you are absolutely sure it is a nearly universal POV. As WP:NPOV advises, when you state a fact about someone's opinion, significant alternative opinions must be given voice too. Something which isn't really feasible in list format and therefore if you state an opinion in the list, it better be a very widely held one. A real clanger I've just spotted is "A perennial favourite with audiences around the world", which is just advertising copy. Anyway, these are just comments, not objections. Colin°^Talk 13:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think the opinions expressed are controversial. Also, I don't understand the example you take: "Much of the music of Akhnaten is some of the most dissonant that Glass has composed". This is exactly the kind of "objective" comment you seem to be demanding. Dissonance is a technical term in music. It isn't a term of abuse, it's just a description. Some people like dissonant music, others don't, but it's been used in opera for over a hundred years now. If our references say "Akhnaten" contains dissonant music then we can follow suit. --Folantin 14:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - He he. Well, I did say "I know nothing..." :-) Colin°^Talk 19:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tompw (talk) 12:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ALoan (Talk) 17:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]