Wikipedia:Peer review/Gianni Schicchi/archive1

Gianni Schicchi

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Gianni Schicci was the last opera that Puccini completed. He subsequently began work on Turandot but didn't finish it. Many people who have never heard of Gianni Schicchi (JANNI SKEE-KEE, if you're wondering) will know its famous aria O mio babbino caro - listen to it on the soundfile. The article is still being tweaked around, particular in relation to recent performance history and images , but User:Wehwalt and I would welcome comments and suggestions on all aspects. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Tim riley comments – I've amended a few typos, and will re-read the article and comment soon. Tim riley (talk) 10:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Most enjoyable. I love Gianni Schicchi, so it has been a particular pleasure to review this article. Not many comments. A few minor points about the prose and one reservation about balance, of which more below.

• General – spelling: English or American? The article is mostly in the former ("rumour", "realise", "equalled") but there is an "unfavorable" in the Background section.
• Conception and composition
  • "However, Puccini was less than enthusiastic…" The "however" might sit better at the beginning of the next sentence, possibly.
  • "The 1918 flu pandemic" – has "flu" graduated from colloquial to standard English? I'm not sure.
• Early performances
  • "was conductor and Puccini friend Arturo Toscanini" – I think this could be better phrased – it isn't really English as it stands.
  • "Puccini hoped that Sir Thomas Beecham would conduct the premiere" – are you quite sure? I am away from home and cannot check in the half-dozen books on my shelves about Beecham, but I don't remember any of them mentioning this. I have the firm impression that that although in his later years Beecham put it about that he had been an intimate of Puccini's, the composer actually rather patronised him. Later: Ignore all that. I have laid hands on a copy of John Lucas's 2008 biog of Beecham, which (p. 149) completely confirms what you have written. Puccini told his close English friend Sybil Seligman that he did not want "that pig of a Toscanini ('il pig de Toscanini')" to conduct, and he did indeed want Tommy to do it. Lucas does not speculate about why Beecham didn't want to.
  • "Gianni Schicchi proved to be the last opera to be completed by Puccini" – two points. First, what is this sentence doing at this point in the article? Secondly, two "to be's" in such close proximity – not appealing to the eye.
  • "Suor Angelica, which had proven the least popular of the three" – unexpected use of the Scottish form of the verb. The plain English "proved" might be better.
  • "incestuously mated with Puccini's own La Bohème" – a nice line, but a touch POV-ish unless it's a quotation. (And lower case bohème, too, surely?)
    • It is not in the source. "incestuous", when applied to inanimate objects incapable of sexual intercourse, is not usually POV. In this context, it merely calls attention to the fact both works are by the same composer. I'm open to deleting or changing the word, but I really think it is a stylistic matter. I'll switch the B to b.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Later performances
  • "a feat she repeated later that season" – I have no serious quibble with the phrase, but nevertheless "feat" is a touch POV unless cited. We have recently touched, at another peer review, on Flagstad and Die Walküre – more soprano notes there than in the whole of the Trittico, I imagine.
  • My one serious concern about the article as it stands is the disproportionate attention given to Woody Allen's Met production. It is just one production among many, and should not get more than a couple of sentences, me judice.
• Music
  • "The theme is referenced again on her entrance" – A strange word to choose! – does it mean it is heard again?
  • "Charles Osborne cites in particular the trio for three female voices" – it might be helpful to give the title (or, I suppose I should say the opening line) of the trio here.

That's all I found. The structure, content, balance (with that one exception) and referencing are all excellent, and it's a most enjoyable read. – Tim riley (talk) 11:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments. I will address them in detail tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have dealt with the minor prose issues (the agreed spelling is English, by the way, so other infractions can be corrected on sight). I will ask conom Wehwalt to respond to your query on the Puccini-Beecham relationship, on the purple prose re La bohème, and on the excessive space given to Woody Allen's production. Thanks again for doing the review. Brianboulton (talk) 13:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I will have to do some research. I hope to respond sometime today.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

In re the Covent Garden production, Toscanini and Beecham, please see my additional remarks above. My apologies for doubting you! Tim riley (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I've struck one sentence to take it down to the "couple of lines" on Woody. I think the readers are entitled to know the reaction to the production; Woody Allen is a subject of people's interest.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

That looks more balanced, I think. P.S.: I've just noticed "deviltries" in the text - should it be "devilries"? P.P.S.: I relished your comparison of GS with Falstaff. If anyone has a mind to bring the Falstaff article up to FA level I should be more than pleased to collaborate if invited. Tim riley (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)