Wikipedia:Peer review/L'ange de Nisida/archive1

L'ange de Nisida

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I started this page on a whim when I noticed it was a red link, and I had Ashbrook on hand. It is not a well-known Donizetti opera, mostly because it was never performed. It is significant, though, because it is connected with the failure of the opera company Donizetti was working with in Paris and marked Donizetti's return to Italy. I'd like to get this to FA. I believe it is comprehensive; it is on the short side, but I exhaustively researched it at home and at a music library. I think I've included all available information on this opera. I'd like specific feedback on the chronology of the "Contract" heading; it was my bugbear for a while. I'd also appreciate comment on the placement of the "Differences" heading; should it be part of "Reworking"? Any other general comments welcome.

Thanks, Andy Walsh (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:- It is good to see this much detail on an intriguing foonote to the Donizetti repertoire. Additional facts are hard to find, though I did manage to prise one small nugget out; evidently, L'ange was chosen by Théâtre de la Renaissance in preference to Wagner's Liebesverbot (Fauser, Annegert (2009): Music, Theater and Cultural Transfer: Paris 1830-1914, Chicago University Press, p. 233)

Further points:

• Lead
  • An English translation of the title (presumably "The Angel of Nisida") would be useful for non-French speakers.
  • Awkwardly phrased and constructed sentence: "He planned to give it in France owing to the potential difficulty getting its subject matter, involving the mistress of a Neapolitan king, past Italian censors." What does "give it" mean ("present it"}? The sentence should be reworked along the lines of "Because the subject matter involved the mistress of a Neapolitan king, and may thus have caused difficulties with the Italian censors, Donizetti decided that the opera should be presented in France."
• Background
  • The first two sentences could be contracted to "L'ange de Nisida incorporated many of the manuscript pages from Adelaide, an unfinished score that Donizetti was probably working on in 1834, from a libretto of unknown origin. This libretto contained elements from the 1790 Parisian play...etc" - thereby removing repetitions.
  • The reference to La Fiancee du Tyrol should be explained - what was this?
• Composition: the first part of this section is repetitious; we were told in the previous section when Donizetti began work on the opera, so this section could begin "Donizetti completed L'ange on 27 December 1839..."
• Contract and cancellation
  • "no language" sounds a bit stilted; "nothing" sounds more natural.
  • What is the basis of the financial conversion?
  • The theatre company closed "later in January", but "it" closed completely in May 1840. What does "it" refer to, if not the theatre company?
• Reworking
  • "The plot of L'ange would have been controversial in Italy due to its subject matter dealing with a Neapolitan king and his mistress, and likely censored." This info has already been given in the Background section. All that's necessary here is: "To circumvent the Italian censors Donizetti agreed to plot modifications; La favorite is about a medieval King of Castille."
  • Clarify that "Donizetti's autograph" refers to La favorite. The terminology "autograph" may be unfamiliar to some readers, so I suggest a link.
  • I'm confused by this: "the legend that Donizetti actually composed the last act of La favorite in a single night by "lifting" all of its material from L'ange." You don't compose something by "lifting" it from somewhere else, you either compose or lift. My understanding of the legend is that Donizetti was said to have composed the act in a single sitting when, in fact, he lifted it from L'ange, except for two solo passages. That's what Ashbrook says in his Oxford Music Online article, and this seems to be confirmed by your next sentence.
• Synopsis
  • "Sylvia"? It's "Silvia" in the list of roles.
  • "A Monk appears..." Why capitalise?
  • Second para, last two sentences: it's not always clear to whom "he" is referring
  • Last para; it is not clear why Sylvia is asking Leone for forgiveness. The reference to her being "near death" is a bit sudden; was this not indicated earlier in the opera?
• Differences
  • "Ashbrook has compared the surviving autograph score of L'ange de Nisida with that of La favorite in the interest of understanding precisely how much material L'ange provided for the latter." Rather cumbersomely expressed; could be shortened to: "Ashbrook has compared the surviving autograph scores of L'ange de Nisida and La favorite, to determine precisely how much material L'ange provided for the latter."
  • It's a bit confusing to say "Donizetti changed the first half of La favorite dramatically." I don't know how to interpret "dramatically" in that context. I am guessing that what is meant is that for La favorite, Donizetti made fundamental changes in the first half of the story, and if this is so the text should be reworded to that effect.
• References: More detail required of the recording from which Marston's album notes are quoted.

I hope this is helpful. I saw nothing basically wrong with the Contract section chronology - my comments on that section are as shown. "Differences" doesn't seem worth a section of its own and could easily be absorbed into "Reworking". Brianboulton (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I will work on addressing your comments in the following couple days. I hope you enjoyed reading about the opera. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Update: I believe I have addressed all of your comments. I realized the fault in my 19th-century Franc to modern Euro conversion was that the web site I used was based on American inflation rates. I had converted the 5000 francs into modern Francs, and then converted those to Euros. Anyway you cut it, two conversions need to be done, and then it's only accurate to the year Francs moved to Euros. What a mess. I removed the conversion until I can find a reliable method of calculating it. Anyway, thanks again! --Andy Walsh (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)