Talk:Cheryl Studer

Untitled

The article (text and photo) have been copied from the artist's home page, but probably without permission. Karl Stas 22:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I do not see evidence of permission on that page, so I reverted to the last non-infringing page (leaving a very short stub). If permission was granted, please show evidence and restore the page. The image is identified as an unknown photographer on her official site, so it is unlikely to be in the public domain as listed. I've requested deletion. Rigadoun (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Tone down of hagiography

I've begun the rewriting process to make it sound less like "PR", and to add citable references rather than just fan-page type links. DJRafe (talk) 05:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you looked at this article recently? There are no fan page links anymore and it has been entirely rewritten already from reliable sources. And I don't think it reads like PR either.Nrswanson (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw that the page was reverted back to the version before mine. I will confess that I did not see versions prior to the most recent pre-my revision, but what I saw was pretty bad and appallingly subjective. The "references", with a very few exceptions, are all official bios from the BBC, agent pages, etc., and thus are not fully objective third-party references. In addition, the tone of what text remains is highly subjective, to put it kindly. It reads totally like a besotted fan's page, which is not what wikipedia is meant to be. (No doubt other artist/celebrity pages are probably much worse, but let's focus on this one for now.) In addition, the person who reverted the page has only Cheryl Studer as his/her only contribution with a sig name. IMHO, this person clearly has no concept that wikipedia is supposed to be "just the facts". If that person had bothered to note my revisions, s/he would have seen that I put proper citations to several of Studer's performances, and that I gave the accepted reference format for the citations that were truly third-party, and not PR.

As an experiment, I will fix the NY Times and Playbill Arts citations alone, but leave the rest intact. I am not a betting person, but I would be willing to bet that Gcdea will revert it back without giving the revisions any thought at all. Sorry for the rant. DJRafe (talk) 04:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I still disagree with such assertions on the article. The article's body really doesn't comment much on Studer's voice, with the exception of the opening paragraph where it does. And as Cheryl Studer was compared to Lottie Lehman in published journal articles I don't see that it is an over the top comment. Praising reviews mostly come from the New York Times review and opera news reviews listed. Those third party asseritions are mostly used to simply say where she performed and with what role. The fact that the shere volume of work is impressive is not really something that can be altered or influenced. And really that is what this article is, just a list of work done. What are they going to do, lie about what roles she did and with what company? Also, the language of this article is pretty much neutral with very little expressive language. It's pretty much just a list of dates and performances. What more do you want?Nrswanson (talk) 04:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Words and phrases like "graced the stages" and "return to form" are not neutral. In addition, it is redundant to have the list of performances (which, by the way, I fixed to make the presentation of titles look better) and some of the main text just repeating them (if in advance).

As an example of general style, let me use as an example one where, I will admit, I made some edits, namely the page for the movie Before Sunset. You can get an idea of the reference format and style in general from that page. I happen to be a fan of that movie, which is why I made edits to the page, but I did not use any hype-like language like "one of the 10 best films of the year" or something like that.

Going back to Studer, in addition, several passages are not concise, which is why I tried to clean up the English in places. In addition, I corrected spelling errors, which the reverter did not even bother to note. "Repetoire" and "Georg Solti" were misspelled, for two.

However, I will concede your point about the Opera News article (ref 2), which is indeed a proper article, and I will fix the reference format to reflect that fact. (I may as well make those spelling fixes in the meantime.) But again, we shall see if the whole article gets reverted.

In closing, you asked "what more do I want", fair enough. I want an article for Studer, or any other topic, that employs neutral language and presents the facts and relevant links. I have no particular bias one way or the other regarding Studer. I recognise that she is a major opera artist. That does not allow me to be flowery and subjective and turn the page into a fan-site wikipedia page, which is what the page essentially is. We may just have to agree to disagree on this page. DJRafe (talk) 05:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually the phrase "returned to form" is a paraphrase from the Opera News Article and is a critical judgment by an established opera critic in reference to a series of positive reviews. (see section on reinstatement at the Bavarian State Opera). So I don't think it is irelevent but rather an important fact in this particular singers career. Particularly since vocal problems negatively effected her career in the 1990s. When dealing with artistic subjects a certain amount of descriptive language and artistic wording should be allowed as you are dealing with an artistic subject. Otherwise the articles loose a certain quality truth to them. As for the term graced the stages it can easily be altered but I don't think it influences the article negatively in any way by its presence or absence. Although it may be more interesting to read by leaving it in. Nrswanson (talk) 05:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I have begun (again) to tone down the hagiographic, fawning nature of the text, such as follows: (1) The "references" from the page devoted to Studer are not objective, 3rd party articles that have passed through external review. They are from a fan page, and are not proper references. I have added articles from the New York Times as proper references where appropriate.
(2) The list of roles sung is in the manner of a "laundry list". wikipedia is a place to present notable achievements and awards of a given person, which have been retained in the text. It is not a place to list every single performance she has ever sung.
(3) Subjective NPOV text has been removed, because as I cannot repeat often enough, the purpose of wikipedia is to present "just the facts" and not to act as a fan page for any person or group. DJRafe (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

DJRafe's edits

Unfortunately, in attempting to stream line the langauge you have altered the information to make it incorrect. Studer is one of ten children which is no longer clear in your wording which makes it seem there are only 9. Also, the comparisons with Lilli Lehmann are directly linked to the issue of diversity in repetoire. A link that you no longer make clear. I hope you don't edit all your articles like this because it changes the page to misleading or unprecise information.Nrswanson (talk) 06:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I have corrected the family information; thank you for pointing that out. Since you mentioned the Opera News article and that sentence, I had to change that sentence about Lehmann becuase it was pretty much plagarised from that article. That is another major no-no on wikipedia. Furthermore, with respect, "descriptive language and artistic wording" lead to a very "slippery slope", because it raises the whole huge question of "with reference to what". The whole point of wikipedia is to present "just the facts" that can be verified and documented, as cannot be too highly emphasised. It is not merely on this entry, but on all entries. Perhaps that makes entries more "dull", in a way. DJRafe (talk) 06:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

But how can you write an article on a singer without including the facts on her voice? Which isn't such an objective subject. So you have to go with critical reviews. That is common practice. Check out the opera wikiproject. You are getting into territory where you don't know what you are doing or wikipedia policy regarding reviewing artists. it's not like writing an article on a science topic. There is some movement for descriptive words. After all it is the voice and the artform that makes this person notable to begin with. Nrswanson (talk) 06:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I didn't originally write the Lehmann thing so don't blame it on me. Is it a direct word for word steal?Nrswanson (talk) 06:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I know that you did not write the Lehmann comment. I tried to restore some of the description to fit what Scherer wrote, paraphrasing his text. (The earlier person who used the sentence from the article did indeed steal, since plagarism is direct use of the words of another person without proper citation.)

None of this is about you or me personally, and I certainly don't want this to become an e-war, since we both obviously have other things to do. I mean no disrespect to you at all. I wish the same treatment in return. DJRafe (talk) 06:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh I totally agree. Just be careful your edits don't change info accuracy. Also, just letting you know as a member of the opera wikiproject, descriptions of singers voices by critics are encouraged to be included within articles by the project.Nrswanson (talk) 06:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I also want to thank you for improving many of the gramatical errors. Saves me the effort of doing it.Nrswanson (talk) 06:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)