Template:Did you know nominations/Opernhaus Wuppertal

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Gilderien Berate|List of good deeds 00:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Opernhaus Wuppertal

(

)

~~... that Peter Hofmann performed the part of Siegmund first at the Opernhaus Wuppertal (pictured), two years before repeating it in the centennial Ring in Bayreuth?~~

Reviewed: Willie Stokes (caddie)

5x expanded by Pigsonthewing (talk), Gerda Arendt (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 14:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC).

very nice, many sources auf Deutsch. PumpkinSky talk 22:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Issues raised with hook and with article's prose in WT:DYK. Hook assumes too much knowledge and misses details that might attract interest; why not "sang the role of Siegmund in Die Walküre" and "the centennial of Wagner's Ring"? Several examples of problematic prose are given there as well, including "In 1939 it was changed considerably." and "The opera is known for revivals of operas", but the whole History section needs significant work, as do other sections including Premieres and revivals. I'd advise a thorough copyedit. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

ALT1: ... that the Opernhaus Wuppertal is the home base for the Tanztheater Wuppertal founded by Pina Bausch, showing from 1975 Stravinsky's The Rite of Spring (pictured)?

The history section is an assembly of puzzle pieces which I found in our articles. It is surprising (to me at least) how many notable people of European theatre worked in Wuppertal at the beginning of their career. The original hook gives one (extremely well known) example. We can drop the section completely, or you tell me where to find information to make it coherent, or we leave it as it is. Same for the revivals of less known operas. I am always open for prose improvements ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
How do I say that it is mostly dedicated to operas, but also shows the performances of the dance company and plays that need a larger stage? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, I think the article needs a new section about today's use of the opera house which could have something like that—major theatrical and dance productions, in addition to operas. Do large orchestras also play on stage there? If so, mention that as well. (This material echos, and would be the source for, the second and third sentences in the intro.)

I've done a copyedit of the article. The only sections I haven't touched are the Performers and the Location: both of these need more sourcing (one per paragraph guideline), and there's something a bit odd about the first listed Performer, Fritz Lehmann. I'm not sure why he was music director from 1938 to 1947 if the building was out of commission from the end of May 1943. Maybe the source would explain (which might be worth echoing in the text); were operas being performed elsewhere, and he was director of the company as well as (or instead of) the house? (I have no idea where further information might be found. If there isn't the sourcing for it, perhaps the section needs to be scaled back and/or renamed: repetiteurs are not performers. Staff? Directors? I'm not sure of the best way to categorize everyone.)

You might want to consider a new hook just about the house: it says something that the war ended in 1945, yet this was one of the first war-damaged theaters to reopen after rebuilding, though it didn't do so until 1956, eleven years afterward. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for thorough reading, I will get to it later. Just the last item: Germany had other things to take care of after the war than building opera houses. Look when the Frankfurt Alte Oper was built again. - As you can see on project opera, there is the conflict of articles on the houses (this one and Schauspielhaus Wuppertal) and the company Wuppertaler Bühnen. We agreed to cover the operatic part of the company in the house article (even for times the house was not available), because the company is for all "Sparten" (opera and play, was for ballet until they split): it would get confusing. - I am tempted to hide the whole people section until after DYK. - I think the hook about Pina Bausch who is known internationally is more attractive than one on some old house in Germany, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for copy-editing. Just one item: The Rite of Spring was first performed in 1975, but kept for a long time as the 2009 picture shows, probably even today, - that's what I tried to say by "from 1975", it doesn't show now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

One more: "protected" as a monument", really? So far yes, but the Schauspielhaus was listed the same way, and did it prevent closing? No. Will it prevent demolition? We don't know yet. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

For the people, I commented out some and sourced the others. Do we have to do the same exercise for the operas, or can we assume in good faith that their articles are correct? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, I'm not sure we can assume good faith about the unsourced operatic World Premieres paragraph, especially as there is disagreement with other Wikipedia pages. For example, the 1986 Cyberiad is, if you go to the composer's page, called Cyberiada, and said to have been written in 1970 there and on The Cyberiad page. It would be unusual for its world premiere to be 16 years after that. Regarding The Rite of Spring, the word "from" didn't convey that this has been revived many times; I've just added new wording that does. Since I didn't know whether the pictured 2009 revival was the most recent, or if the piece is still in the company's repertoire (though I imagine it is), I didn't mention it directly. If "protected" isn't a valid word for the monument classification, perhaps "designated" or something along those lines? What does the classification mean, exactly? (Some classifications, while not preventing demolition, and make alterations more difficult or give more ammunition to people fighting to save the structure.) BlueMoonset (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The premieres and revivals are now sourced. Cyberiada is translated to The Cyberiad, learning ;) The 1970 version was on TV, the 1986 Wuppertal performance was the first staging, if I read the source right. - Classification: ideally it means "protected, deserving extra care", but in real life ... - What do you think of "classified as an architectural monument"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Good work on sourcing all those important productions. I think "classified as an architectural monument" should be fine. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the interest of the hooks: while naturally Germany had a great deal of rebuilding to do in the 40s and 50s, I thought it was interesting to know that in the mid-1950s they were just starting to rebuild major theaters like this one. However, if ALT1 is to be used, it needs to be revised into better prose. I tried, and it went in a different direction. I have two options; the first is a bit shorter and has Bausch as choreographer, while the second alludes to her running the Tanztheater:

ALT2: ... that Opernhaus Wuppertal's 1975 premiere of Tanztheater Wuppertal's production of Pina Bausch's choreography for Stravinsky's The Rite of Spring (revival pictured) was on a stage covered with soil?
ALT3: ... that Opernhaus Wuppertal's 1975 premiere of Pina Bausch's choreography for her Tanztheater Wuppertal's production of Stravinsky's The Rite of Spring (revival pictured) was on a stage covered with soil?

Both are longer, but I think the "stage covered with soil" adds extra punch (soil is different from dirt, so I went with the article's word; if "dirt" is appropriate, then "in dirt" can replace "with soil"). There may be ways to condense these, but I haven't figured out how yet. ALT2 is 197 characters including the "(revival pictured)", 11 characters of which can be excluded from the total, and ALT3 is 201 characters, ditto, which means 186 and 190 respectively.

Let me know what you think. One final note: the "Location" section needs some sort of sourcing. (Is the red link really appropriate in the reference section?) BlueMoonset (talk) 02:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Starting in the end: I will remove the red link (left from the German). When the paper may get an article, it will be found. - Your soil idea is great, and yes, soil, earth, to the roots, - not dirt. I don't like the article's topic as a genitive, so trying:

ALT4: ... that in the 1975 premiere at the Opernhaus Wuppertal of The Rite of Spring in Pina Bausch's choreography, the dancers performed on on a stage covered with soil (revival pictured)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether we need 1975 premiere in there at all. As it stands, it's a little awkward. Can we make it a little simpler? How about:

ALT5: ... that in the Opernhaus Wuppertal production of The Rite of Spring (revival pictured), choreographed by Pina Bausch, the dancers performed on a stage covered with soil?

I hope this works better. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Fine with me, thanks for thinking about it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Needs new review including ALT5 hook, given issues with original one and changes since. (Have struck other hooks due to various issues with them.) Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Nice article. The changes made since the first review have clearly significantly improved it. ALT5 looks fine to me; I'd say this one's good to go now. Prioryman (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)