Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Noye's Fludde/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose (talk) 05:39, 17 August 2014 [1].

Noye's Fludde edit

Featured article candidates/Noye's Fludde/archive1

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC) and Alfietucker (Talk)[reply]

Britten's short church opera, based on the biblical story of Noah and the Flood, has delighted performers and audiences for more than half a century. Among its memorable moments is the great storm, during which the human and animal occupants of the ark pray for salvation in the words of the hymn "Eternal Father, strong to save". Throughout, the mix of conventional and improvised instruments create a vivid sound picture, from the portentious opening to the redemptive finale. If you've not heard it before, listen if you get the chance. The article has been thoroughly reviewed at PR (comments here). My conom Alfietucker and I will welcome further suggestions or criticisms. Brianboulton (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support I was one of the peer reviewers. Well worthy. Just getting in ahead of the Fludde.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review help and support, much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Second wave, just behind Wehwalt: I was also one of the peer reviewers. My few quibbles – none of them of much consequence – were all dealt with fully there. This is a fine article, a pleasure to read, comprehensive, carefully proportioned and balanced, with a wide range of sources, fully cited. Images are as good as can be, given copyright constraints, and the judicious use of quote boxes breaks the text up nicely. I mean it as a compliment to the co-nominators when I say that this top-notch article almost overcame my allergy to the piece – a very considerable achievement. Certainly an article to grace the front page. – Tim riley talk 18:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am sorry we could not fully overcome your irrational aversion to this delightful piece, but give it time, give it time. Your help in reading and reviewing the article is greatly appreciated, in amy event. Brianboulton (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support A lot of good work has been done on this article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ian, we're glad you enjoyed the article. Brianboulton (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I was another satisfied reviewer at PR, and thought then (or prematurely) that this article was of FA standard. Interesting, concise, and very well written are just three of the reasons as to why this article should wear the gold star. Cassianto ^talk 06:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your review efforts and support. Brianboulton (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Yet another happy sailor from PR turning up to the swell of admiration for this excellent article. A subsequent re-run shows the few minor changes since I reviewed have only strengthened the article. - SchroCat (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As above – thanks! Brianboulton (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add my thanks to Brian's - I share his pleasure that you have all enjoyed the article so much. Many of you have helped a great deal already with your feedback at PR, and to have your appreciative comments here is a wonderful reward for what has been a fairly intensive yet pleasurable process. Alfietucker (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I've not been involved in this process before but I do think that this is a terrific article and I would be pleased to see it featured.

Can I mention a couple of minor gripes, please? (With apologies if they have already been discussed but I missed it.) The subsection "Performance requirements" seems to be overfond of "respective" and "respectively", which I fear add little or nothing. In this one I think it's literally nothing that is added: "There is a dance or ballet involving two child performers playing the roles respectively of the raven and the dove." Surely "respectively" would only make sense here if the two child performers were somehow differentiated; male and female, tall and short, do and don't like bluegrass music? Without anything to enable us to get a cigarette paper between the two, I feel that "respectively" is redundant; no less information is conveyed here: "There is a dance or ballet involving two child performers playing the roles of the raven and the dove." Or am I missing the point? It would not be the first time.

My next small beef is with "respective" in this sentence: "The young musicians play a variety of instruments, including a full string ensemble with each section led by a respective member of the professional string quintet." This inflames my perhaps not fully rational hatred of "respective" quite badly, making me shout at my inoffensive computer, "well of course they bl**dy are!" I can't see how this is better, or rather, not worse, than "The young musicians play a variety of instruments, including a full string ensemble with each section led by a member of the professional string quintet." If BB had specified that the cellos should be led by the first violin and so on then it would be remarkable; but he did not, and we certainly do not need telling this. I could write more, but should probably not. Please consider looking again at these two wordings, and I again I apologize if I am missing some crucial nuance. Best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 10:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your feedback, DBaK: you're absolutely right on both counts and I've made the amends. As a matter of fact, at the first production the Raven was danced by a boy, and the Dove by a girl, so it's sometimes said that the roles are traditionally assigned respectively to these genders; I seem to remember we may even have said this in the article at one stage, but that has - probably quite rightly (e.g. the lead female character of Moonrise Kingdom plays the Raven) - been edited out. Alfietucker (talk) 10:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much; that's great. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 10:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bugles – Sorry, me again.

(1) why do we specify that they are B-flat bugles? We may or may not need to; I honestly don't know ... BUT if we do, why do we specify it in that particular place? They are mentioned plenty of times before and their pitch is not specified, and it sure as anything hasn't changed! :) and

(2) is no more known about the writing and performance of the bugle parts? I see and like what we have, and it fits the general picture of the am/pro/what's available thing, but I just wondered if anything else citeable and interesting had been said about it. For example the parts are not that easy - that written B-flat, a rather flat 7th harmonic, is something that doesn't really show up in bugle music, most of which stops at the 6th harmonic, the written G. Buglers will have spent years trying NOT to play it! And in context it's very exciting, but probably not that easy to find for a young player. Did anyone talk about it, or how the buglers coped, or whether they craftily had a pro or two go and help out? :) Sorry to go on but I'm a trumpet player and it's of some interest, not least because it's yet another example (see Fanfare for St Edmundsbury and Serenade for Tenor, Comma, Horn and Strings inter alia) of BB's absolutely divine genius grasp of writing for natural(/ish) brass. I'm shutting up for a while now. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) The point here is not that the bugles are in B flat, but that they are playing fanfares in B flat, which are followed by the key changes explained in subsequent sentences. I have changed this accordingly to make it clear.

2) Maybe this is a little too involved for the article, but FWIW I've looked at the score, and I see that in the fanfare played at the end of the animals' march into the ark, the lead bugle plays a high A flat (i.e. this would be a flattened 7th in the key of B flat). Is this what you mean by the "that written B-flat"? (i.e. would the actual bugle parts be written in C? In which case that written "B flat" would sound A flat when played. I ask as someone who doesn't play the bugle.) Otherwise I believe it's all straightforward fanfaring in B flat (certainly for the remaining three players), and as they are bugles in B flat that doesn't seem exceptional. Or have I misunderstood your point? Alfietucker (talk) 15:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that.

(1) Exactly. That small change seems amazingly effective. Thank you!

(2) No, you've understood me well thanks. I've seen the score and recorder (don't ask) parts but not the bugle parts; but it is vanishingly unlikely that they are written in anything other than a transposing B-flat, making them to appear to the players as if in C so yes, my written B-flat is the sounding A-flat to which you refer. I'm sorry if I was unclear about this. I don't think that they are exceptionally hard parts but as I say the written B-flat might upset the applecart a little with young or inexperienced players. I was hoping that BB had written/said something about it or someone else had written that "Ben was upset that the buglers found the A-flat so difficult to pitch and had Ernie Hall come in and play with them" or whatever. BUT I cheerfully acknowledge that this is a bit of a specialist taste for a generalist article and if nothing springs to mind - and I have also not yet found anything interesting, scandalous or helpful in my books - then it can and should absolutely be left and forgotten, and I will go and put the kettle on. Thanks again and best wishes DBaK (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS I do now rather wish that I had asked [dropped name removed] about the bugling when I had the chance, but it is a bit too late now! :( DBaK (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Can I add my thanks to Alfie's for your contribution here, and for your support. My online time is very limited at the moment so I can't say more, except that as you have been contributing since 2002 I'm surprised I haven't encountered you before – or perhaps I have. Brianboulton (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review All image seem validly in the public domain.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brianboulton (talk) 08:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Any reason why Ref 24 and 46 use a different name format?
- In Ref 24, the original publication and date are already given in the footnote itself - but I see your point re consistency. I've amended accordingly.
Ref 72 and 73 are newspapers, so need ‘work’ or ‘newspaper’ parameter. Author for 72 missing.
Full stop at the end of "Operabase.com list of performances from 1 January 2011 and forward Retrieved 13 August 2013" Lemonade51 (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks for your feedback, Lemonade 51: I've now made the amendments. Alfietucker (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 05:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.