Clear, carefully constructed list, utterly transparent in its NPOV criteria. A few objections of possible bias have, I think, been dealt with. I suppose the FLCandidacy might show up a few short biographies that could use tweaking, but otherwise, I think we're pretty good. Partial self-nom. Adam Cuerden talk 19:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't feel qualified to vote at the moment as I'm not familiar with FL process and criteria - I don't know my way around here as well as I do FA - and anyway I contributed very heavily to this list - but it does strike me that whatever objections are raised this list cannot be far off. The referencing is exhaustive and the criteria used for selection are absolutely NPOV. I've just added a few pretty pictures per WP:WIAFL. Moreschi 21:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: A number of operas listed are not linked and at least a couple are not italicized. Rmhermen 03:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't spot any unitalicised ones, but I think they're all linked now. Adam Cuerden talk 04:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I caught one more and linked it. And another editor already got the italics. Rmhermen 05:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - several sound clips have been added. IMO it looks good. Moreschi 21:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I'm a bit embarrassed about how I came across this article. I'm normally not a big fan of lists and articles that say things like "major" or "notable". I was in a dispute over an unrelated list that was to the same extent, and someone mentioned this article. In a huff I went over and placed the ((OR)) tag on it, and when it got removed I listed the article for deletion. I don't normally make such a WP:POINT violation.. and it was pretty clear that's what I had done when I started to read people's comments to be about the deletion. I retracted my nomination and got some much needed sleep and break away from editing. That little story aside, the article is actually very excellent, and upon further reflection, the inclusion criteria is helps to make this article neutral and stable. No new statements were being made, so OR wasn't an issue as I had originally thought. Keep in mind, I'm not supporting this to "make up" for my mistake, but rather because I really do feel this is a feature worthy list. I only felt it necessary to explain that situation incase someone thought "hey, why is he supporting? didn't he try to delete that article?". -- Ned Scott 05:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support attractive, NPOV, well referenced, useful to someone new to opera, encyclopedic. Mak (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Rmhermen 02:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment good list; is there some way to say what dates the date range sections are based on? It looks like date of birth, but not sure. Hmains 02:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It says in the lead. Adam Cuerden talk 03:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)Comment It already says that it is arranged by birthdate. Of course it follows that the headings are based on birthdate, broken up fairly arbitrarily by century, because humans like round numbers, with and extra break in the nineteenth century, for convenience. 69.19.14.15 03:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I enjoyed reading the list Hmains 03:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - the lead is too short, the "Lists consulted" section is a meta-section and needs to be merged with references, women section needs less self-reference (stuff on how you came up with the names), when citing websites please use ((cite web)) and books ((cite book)), and small fact: first surviving opera, Euridice (1600) or the first ever opera, Dafne? Renata 22:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with your objection to the meta-section: A clear explanation of how the list was created is important, as it states its limits and possible biases. However, it could easily be added to a sub-section of References. The Women section has to be self-referential a bit, as we must be clear as to the limitations of the techniques for choosing major opera composers in order to explain why there are no women in the main list: I fear you'v e missed the major controversies. We want to be clear that some authorities do believe these are major opera composers, while being clear why they're seperated. Also, if we don't explain the criteria, we're going to be sent right back to the old, untentable situation where people just added whoever they wanted. The templates do not offer a useful option for citing only part of a book, and we can't just cite the whole book the lists came from, as we are NOT using every opera composer listed in an encyclopedia of opera. Still, I'll template the ones that can be. The lead, I suppose, could be longer, but I'll leave that to the other people responsible for the list. I've fixed Peri (answer: both). Adam Cuerden talk 22:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid I tried to use the citation templates, but found them unsuitable: They do not seem to offer a way to handle citing the encyclopedias, and as such would be very difficult to use cleanly. Adam Cuerden talk 23:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from an involved editor: Agree with Adam about the meta-section, lead and the references. The advantage of this list is that the selection criteria are clearly stated. We've had very favourable comments about this from general readers. --Folantin 11:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Another comment from an involved editor: per WP:WIAFL the lede shouold be "concise". It is. The women section has been cleaned up and I fail to see much of a problem with the so-called "meta-section". A merge with references would be horrifically confusing as many of the stuff in "References" is there to reference the annotations, not the actual selection. Per Adam, the templates don't seem to work. Moreschi 13:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I think we've fixed all objections but the citation tags now. I'll start on that. Adam Cuerden talk 23:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As of today, the citation tags don't work: They cannot handle books with just an editor cleanly. Adam Cuerden talk 00:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Right. I THINK everything has been dealt with you asked for. Adam Cuerden talk 10:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Are those particular templates specified at WP:WIAFL? --Folantin 18:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I have had a go at the lead - it is still quite short (some would say "concise" :) - but I am not sure what more can be said. Some prefer the "cite" templates for consistency, but they are not mandatory. This nomination has already run on over its usual 10 days. I would promote it now, but I want to see if anyone has anything to add to the lead section. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you very much for the support. I hope you don't mind, but I reverted your changes to the lead because I have a feeling they would probably take us back into the POV "can of worms" territory we've tried to avoid in this page. Anyway, the lead is still concise and I think it explains everything a reader needs to know about the composition of the list. Thanks! --Folantin 14:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have tried modifying lead in another way - I think the list needs to make it clear how the potential POV issued was addressed. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Lists consulted" section gives a very detailed explanation of that. There is a link to the "lists consulted" section in the lead. I think that's enough. --Folantin 14:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it does (or did), but the selection criteria are such a central element of this list that I think they really ought be set out in the lead. Anyway, I have said my piece. Let us see what others think. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We tried doing that once. It looked awful and unbalanced the page. I think a link is enough and any reader can handle it. It's better to put the thorough explanation at the bottom of the page. --Folantin 15:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Wonder how the Opera corpus will be organized though... bibliomaniac15 02:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]