Jump to content

Talk:Galina Pisarenko

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following 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 Aoidh (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 22:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: No - meh
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Okay Gerda Arendt, I know that you often want to highlight the performances. But how about a different angle in this case? I read She taught until her death and regarded as one of the best modern voice teachers and She gave master classes in countries such as [list of countries all over the world] – wouldn't it be interesting to say that after being leading singer for years, she went on to almost have a "second" carreer as a teacher? Maybe you can come up with a hook for that :) –LordPeterII (talk) 20:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but that she went to Japan in the Cold War era says more about her than long teaching, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree that a more exciting ALT would be preferable. Pisarenko was personally selected by Dmitri Shostakovich to perform some of his vocal works at a major retrospective of his music that was performed in Gorky in 1963. She also was one of the performers for the world premiere of the orchestral version of his From Jewish Folk Poetry; she learned the soprano part from her teacher Nina Dorliak, who had performed the work with the composer himself at the premiere of the original version. Something there could provide material for an ALT. I'd add it to the article myself with sources, but I'm heading out for the night shortly. By the way, her performing in Japan was not unusual. It was fairly common for Soviet performers to tour and perform in Japan, especially during the 1960s and 1970s. Among those who regularly performed there were Yevgeny Mravinsky, Alexander Gauk, Kyril Kondrashin, Gennady Rozhdestvensky, Arvid Jansons, Vladimir Fedoseyev, et al. Moreover, JVC and NHK both had partnerships with Melodiya and Gosteleradio that lasted until the collapse of the Soviet Union. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! I have some free time later today; will add and cite info from Khentova, then make a new ALT then. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CurryTime7-24: Thanks so much. Will be waiting for your response. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. Been busy. I added the Shostakovich info to Pisarenko's article last night. Will make a couple of DYKs based on it later today. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, some new ALTs. Let me know if any of these work:

  • ALT1: ... that Galina Pisarenko was personally selected by Dmitri Shostakovich to sing at a festival dedicated to his music in Gorky? Source: Shostakovich: Zhizn i tvorchestvo by Sofia Khentova, p. 407
  • ALT2: ... that Galina Pisarenko sang in the world premiere of the orchestral version of Dmitri Shostakovich's From Jewish Folk Poetry, a work whose original version was premiered by her teacher? Source: Dmitri Shostakovich: The First Hundred Years and Beyond by Derek C. Hulme, p. 309
  • ALT3: ... that Galina Pisarenko sang to Dmitri Shostakovich while he was staying at a hospital in 1972? Source: Shostakovich: Zhizn i tvorchestvo by Sofia Khentova, p. 507
  • ALT4: ... that recordings by Galina Pisarenko were among those chosen to be played at Dmitri Shostakovich's funeral? Source: Shostakovich v Moskve by Sofia Khentova, p. 204

—CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for expanding the article, and for the offers, but much of them seems more about Shostaovich than her, and wait until a reviewer says they don't know him, or that the general reader will not know him. How about saying at least that she is a soprano, if not her 30 years at the theatre? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's all I got. Reference to Shostakovich is probably not an impediment to this DYK's wider appeal; another reviewer may feel otherwise. Anyway, I'm just a volunteer in this DYK. @Narutolovehinata5: courtesy ping. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the only possible options left here are varieties of "DYK that opera performer sang a song/performed a role", a format that time and time again has proven to have failed to intrigue non-specialist audiences, then I'm thinking perhaps we just have to decline this nomination for lack of a suitable hook. It doesn't help that Shostakovich is central to all these hook proposals, and given he isn't that well-known to general audiences, the mention of him would count as specialist knowledge and thus the hooks only appeal to specialists, which goes against the DYK criteria. As for the part about her being a soprano or that she sang for 30+ years, again, those are formats that only appeal to specialists, not non-specialists. I'm thinking this article is one of those cases where there just isn't anything usable for DYK. And that's fine, we still have a fine article, perhaps it just wasn't meant to be for DYK. The article doesn't need to be on DYK, anyone who wants to know about Pisarenko and her accomoplishments can still read the article regardless. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make it clear, the DYK criteria states that hooks must be likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest. This means that even someone unfamiliar with the names or context should still find the hook intriguing. If there is a need for a nominator to explain "actually, this information is significant or unusual and here's why" in a nomination page, then that's probably a sign the hook is too specialist. The hook has to be largely self-evident instead of needing to be explained, that's the whole point of the criterion.
Given that all the above proposals seem to be reliant on knowledge of Shostakovich or Russian classical music, none of them appear to meet that particular criterion. I'm willing to reconsider this marking for closure if a non-specialist hook can be proposed, but as it stands, the DYK criteria explicitly state that hooks must appeal to non-specialists, and hooks and nominations that do not meet this criterion can be rejected. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree, sorry. Regardless of opera singer or not, this woman was a long-time Russian performer who also worked in Japan, during the Cold War, - how that isn't interesting to the broadest audience is a riddle to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CurryTime7-24: might be able to explain further, but he said earlier that it wasn't actually that unusual for the time for Russian classical performers to stay in Japan for prolonged periods. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but what does it mean about it's appeal to the general reader?? - CurryTime thought it wasn't as interesting as the details added later, see ALTs, - but you seem to disagree. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is really one of those cases where none of the information is really suitable for a non-specialist hook. The Cold War connection is easy to miss, while the other suggestions are reliant on names and context that may be unfamiliar to most readers. The original hook is a specialist hook anyway: it's a role hook, one whose intrigue is reliant on readers being familiar with Stanislavski and Nemirovich-Danchenko Theatre or Tchaikovsky's works. Readers probably may at least know Tchaikovsky but may not necessarily know most of his works by name, and if they do, it's probably individual pieces like his concertos and ballets rather than his operas. It doesn't fit the intrigue to non-specialists criterion and thus should be rejected. If there was something particularly unusual about this performance, like for example if it was the only performance by a Russian in Japan over a long period, or if her performance had some special circumstances behind it, or even if she was instead a Russian opera performer who spent her entire career in Japan, then perhaps that could intrigue non-specialists. But as it stands, it's just a routine role hook, basically a hook about someone doing their job. That's not really something that's going to intrigue people unless they have special knowledge or interest. I think it's really for the best to let this nomination go and focus efforts on nominating articles about subjects that have actually suitable hooks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pisarenko performing in Japan was not unusual for Soviet musicians. As I said earlier, many regularly performed and recorded there starting in the late 1950s. Moreover, there were longstanding partnerships between Soviet broadcasters and record labels with their Japanese counterparts. To frame her touring in Japan as exceptional or that somehow they either defied or maybe were the result of Cold War-era intrigues would be misleading. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 16:11, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'm able to express my thoughts on the matter well so I'd like to ask Theleekycauldron to come here and explain the new criterion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You may have missed that I do not intend to nominate any new content to DYK in the present climate, but I'd like to see this woman of great achievements - just look at teaching - to be once more presented to the general audience. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To rank Shostakovivch - around 1000 pageviews every day - as for "specialists" seems to speak about your personal knowledge rather than his perception in the world. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1,000 page views per day may seem like a lot (and to some extent it is for some topics), but it's not really that high in the grand scheme of things. Tchaikovsky's article for example gets around 5,000 views per day, while articles about currently-airing television series often hit at least 10,000 per day. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy! Interesting break from writing about a TikToker – hmm, okay. Seems like CurryTime proposed a bunch of hooks Gerda disapproved of, taking them off the board. The remaining hooks Gerda did propose were found to fail the criteria by three separate uninvolved individuals. I'm not weighing in on this discussion, nor am I going to close it, because I was pinged here. But I am simply going to say that all argument after Narutolovehinata5's mark for closure is simply a waste of time and ink. Narutolovehinata5 is not empowered to approve the original hook even if he wanted to; two against two isn't enough to create a consensus without extenuating circumstances in the argument. Unless Gerda has plans to overturn the results of the discussion at WT:DYK, renege on CurryTime's hooks, or propose another of her own, i recommend that we stop litigating this and move on. There's simply no other nomination in the known DYK universe that survives when three reviewers tell the nominator "no". I'm happy to discuss more about the new criterion on my talk page, but these nominations ain't reviewing and promoting themselves. We simply do not have the time to microlitigate DYK philosophy every time Gerda makes a nomination, the project needs to continue. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 11:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I realize I didn't actually explain the change in the rules – it's mostly semantic. The only difference is that instead of measuring what proportion of the audience is likely to be intrigued by a thing, specialists and non-specialists, the new criterion groups the readership into specialists and non-specialists and measures how likely the non-specialists are to be intrigued by a thing. Really, all it means is that the "specialist" audience can be arbitrarily large, but it can't constitute the "broad" audience the hook appeals to. Topics with large specialist audiences, of course, are also likely to have lots of common knowledge floating around the peasants as well, meaning that the difference is more a clarification than anything substantive. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 11:37, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I see a wrong perception on your side, which is that I disapproved the new hooks. I didn't. I just pointed the creator at that they don't say much about the woman, and that someone would arrive saying Shostakovich was not known to the general reader - which is sure enough what happened. There's nothing preventing you from liking one of the new hooks, - my personal opinion doesn't take them off the table. What does "renege" mean, anyway? Good luck with the continued project - I won't be in its way. - I'll look at a different hook, also, out of respect for this woman. (10k views when she died. I wish her 1k extra.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think ALT3 is pretty decent, so if it's all the same to you, I'm happy to give it a tick. Also happy to review anything else you can write. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 11:47, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. I came to propose 2,
Just my private view: ALT3 says that some female person sang at a great composer's deathbed - this could be a girl from his family, - it says not a single bit about her being a professional singer, and of what stature. Really? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think anyone likes promoting a hook the nominator doesn't approve of. Usually, when someone comes along and proposes a hook on someone else's nomination, we wait for the nominator's enthusiastic consent before putting the time into assessing it. Generally leads to a lot of hurt feelings when DYK places someone else's hook on their hook work. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 12:03, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be okay with ALT5. ALT4/ALT4a is a non-starter for me due to my concerns about mentioning Shostakovich in a hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:11, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If there is interest, I can do some digging in Russian on Pisarenko in order to have material for more appealing ALTs. However, I would not be able to deliver anything until December 27 (PST). —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. However if there are still no good hooks by the 27th or after then it's probably best to let this nomination close (I did state above that I think ALT5 is the best option so far, but upon further reflection, I have reservations that it will outperform classical music hooks that have run in the past). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, so it's knocking heads together time. (To avoid international misunderstanding, that's not about violence. Where I come from it means lining up two people whose pointless disagreement has got out of hand, and tell them both what's what.)
  • @Narutolovehinata5:. It is not reasonable to demand closure of a nomination within two days on the grounds that it is not resolved yet. I say this because: (1) This is one of Gerda's noms which was in abeyance during the guidelines discussion, so allowance should be made for delay between October and December; (2) Discussion has not yet finished; see ALTs 6, 7 and 8; (3) This is the Christmas holiday when a large number of our editors/reviewers are absent, so an arbitrary deadline for closure, set by yourself, of 27 December while so many Wikipedians are away, is unreasonable; (4) although the recent discussion on guidelines did include some people saying they wanted to terminate noms which had difficulty in following the new guideline, that idea was not up for discussion, and was not included in the ultimate consensus there; on the contrary we frequently allow noms well over two months to find the ideal hook and there's no guideline saying that we have to stop doing that. (5) Shostakovich is a familiar name to most people in the UK and Europe. A US-centric view of our audience should not sway the fate of a hook. The UK and Europe have heard of Shostakovich (even if they only know that he was a musician) because ours is an old civilisation, with a traditional education system, in which we all hear about that sort of thing. I have mentioned Europe and UK because that is where I am, but of course Shostakovich is known worldwide, especially in Russia and Japan, and English is taught throughout those countries. So the name Shostakovich is not a specialist subject worldwide. This may come as a surprise, but Rest-of-the-World is bigger than the US, and we do have an international audience. Storye book (talk) 12:19, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gerda Arendt:. The guidelines have changed, whether you and I agree with them or not. We have to adapt to survive, now, in DYK. As I have said in another nom template, we have the option of creating hooks which will satisfy reviewers like those who have commented here, while discreetly including some little thing for our specialists. For those without knowledge, we have the novelty of some great diva coming into a hospital to warble at some bloke in bed. For our specialists we have a "very fine singer" which will satisfy them just as much as the hoi polloi, but in a different way. I strongly suggest that when you get around to returning to DYK, that you try to include something in your nominated articles that could be used in a crowd-pleasing hook, and would also please all our regular reviewers. You can do it. A lot of that type of stuff seems to be in the reviews, so maybe include as many reviews as possible, even the rather odd ones? Storye book (talk) 12:19, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meanwhile, best wishes of the season to all in this discussion here. Peace and love, eh?
I think it would be unfair to say that there should be an "abeyance" granted for this nomination because there was none discussed in the RFC and there was no such consensus for such. The rules have changed, and any open nominations have to follow these rules. Giving this nomination special treatment and "exempting" it from the RfC simply because it was started before said RfC launched would be unfair to other nominations in similar positions. There is no explicit rule about deadlines; however, it is implicit in the rules that hooks need to follow guidelines, and hooks and nominations that do not can be rejected. We regularly decline nominations and hooks for improper sourcing or article issues, so what makes hooks/articles that do not meet the intriguingness guideline any different in this regard? Finally, the RfC has already concluded and there was consensus against specialist hook: why is there still a desire to "discreetly include something for the specialists" when such a practice has already been rejected via an RfC?
As for ALT6-8 themselves, I really don't think they're going to work out either even though I do think ALT6 is a cute hook. We've recently had a number of classical music hooks run on DYK that uses quotes or descriptions, and none of them did particularly well views-wise. Theleekycauldron may have some more insight considering she's the one who runs the statistics pages, but suffice to say I really think this is one of those cases where the nomination should be allowed to close for lack of a better hook. Sorry that it didn't turn out well but that's how things work; instead of so much effort being exerted just to make this work for DYK, I think it would be a better idea to divert such attention to other nominations that do have usable material instead. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:43, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Narutolovehinata5: Please read again, what I have written.
  • Firstly, I did not suggest that there was ever a formal (in the legal sense) abeyance order put on this template. I used the word in its normal dictionary sense of being just delayed - in this case, as we all know, editors appear to have waited for the result of the AfC discussion before continuing on this template, so we had a time-gap. That's what I meant by "abeyance", just people not reviewing for a while, waiting for a decision on the guideline. So this template sat here unattended by default. Therefore this nomination should not be punished by summary closure for being still in existence after two months. Two months is not an unusual delay for a DYK, anyway.
  • Secondly, I do not believe that there is a case for closing it just because you don't like the hooks offered. Gerda has not had time to comment on hooks 6, 7 and 8, and neither has anyone else, and that includes the editors/reviewers who are currently on holiday. Note that in some countries (including the UK) the Christmas holiday period extends into January.
  • Thirdly, if you really believe that your time would be better spent in "divert[ing] such attention to other nominations that do have usable material", then how about you put your money where your mouth is, and doing just that, instead of hanging around here trying to close the nomination while some of us are still working on the hooks?
  • Fourthly, you say yourself that "there is no explicit rule about deadlines", so how about you stop setting deadlines (which you are not in a position to do) and let the rest of us get on with our job of continuing this nom?
  • Fifthly, you ask, "Why is there still a desire to discreetly include something for the specialists when such a practice has already been rejected via an RfC?" No such practice was rejected when there was an RfC. The ALTs 6, 7 and 8 above contain material solely and specifically for people without knowledge of the subject. "Discreetly" means that most people (or even maybe no people) will see any second meaning in those hooks. But Gerda and I can, and that is what matters. The double meaning is in the phrase, "very fine singer". Our readers without knowledge will just take it that the subject is a jolly good singer. They can understand that in any way they wish - they can even be intrigued by it, and click for more. What's not to like? Everybody will understand that phrase in their own way - usually in relation to their own favourite music. That is the only fluid meaning in those three hooks, and as such, it breaks no rules. If the hook were about your own favourite singer, and it included that phrase, you yourself could not object. So why object if the subject is not your favourite singer? There is absolutely nothing in those three hooks to break the current guidelines. (Note: if you don't get subtlety, that's your problem. I don't plot secretly, which is why I explained the hooks openly, here. If I had not explained it, you would never have noticed it, and you would never have yelped that rules were being broken, when they were not being broken. Either way, no guideline is broken.)
  • Sixthly, you have effectively started an edit war by twice affixing an "ineligible" motif to the nomination within 24 hours, in spite of my statement that I disagreed with that motif. If you do that for a third time in contradiction to what others have previously said, then I believe that you should be reported for it. You have already promised theleekycauldron in 2022 that you would stop discussing "interestingness" on Gerda's nominations, but you are now doing that same thing in an even more obstructive manner. You are not the boss of Wikipedia, and you are not an admin, therefore you are not in a position to make final pronouncements on the fate of this nomination. So I am asking you to PLEASE STEP AWAY before you draw negative attention onto yourself, and so that others may continue with this nomination in a positive manner.
  • I should add that your first attempt to unilaterally mark this nomination ineligible was on Christmas Day, an important day of peace and love among Christians. To send that message in such a strongly-worded and dismissive manner on that day was in my opinion an act of cruelty to someone unseen behind your computer screen, who may have felt that act on Christmas day to be intentionally shocking. I certainly felt shocked that anyone would do that, and the message was not intended for me, so I dread to think how a nominator/creator would feel. Just because that person does not yelp or come back to you verbalising distress, that does not mean that you have not done a bad thing. Whatever your good intentions, you have actually done a cruel thing. So again I ask you to not make things worse for yourself by misreading this post as well, or by replying to this with excuses. I repeat that you should now STEP AWAY, and let the rest of us deal with this. After all, you have better things to do, eh. Wikipedia is not being harmed by this nomination continuing while we take another look at the hooks. Reviewers' time is not being wasted if those who comment here, want to comment here for a positive reason. Storye book (talk) 17:42, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have to note that I already did give reviews to ALT6-8. I stated above that they didn't seem to meet the "intriguingness to non-specialist criterion" even though I do have a bit of a soft spot for ALT6; indeed upon further reflection I would be open to approving some variant of ALT6 with some additional context or rewording (i.e. mentioning why he was sick, or removing the "very fine singer" wording per neutrality concerns). To say that you disagree with a review is not the same as stating that a formal review has not been given. Also, I find the idea that the nomination shouldn't have been declined because it was Christmas very strange. I would have said the same to the hooks regardless of the date, and reviews generally don't take into consideration holidays when approving or rejecting nominations (unless it's for an upcoming special occasion). If I encountered a different nomination on Christmas that was ineligible for whatever reason (for example, it didn't meet length requirements), I would have still rejected it despite being Christmas.
Anyway, I can at least offer a compromise in the interest of this passing, if you'd wish. I could suggest dropping all current proposals other than ALT6 and working from there. It's the proposal that I think has the best chance of intriguing non-specialist audiences, but not in its current state since I think it's still too reliant on specialist knowledge (i.e. knowing Shostakovich or his importance). However, with some rewording per the suggestions I gave earlier, I think it could make a good broadly-intriguing hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:55, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Storye book: I just now noticed your new ALTs. You cited Khentova 1985, p. 507 for all of them. Looking at the page in right now, but the information you added does not appear there. Namely "very fine singer" and the implication that Pisarenko "brought" Oleg Kagan, et al to sing for Shostakovich. Where did you find these? If Shostakovich said "very fine singer", I can't find it in Khentova. As for the hospital visit, there is no inference that any one of the musicians involved took the lead in organizing the visit. If anything, it was likely either Khentova, who at the time was already designated by Shostakovich to be his biographer, or Shostakovich himself in order to hear his arrangement as soon as possible. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added some further info to the article from Russian sources. Deferring to Gerda to devise new ALTs from this material; it wasn't my intention to step on her toes in the first place. If this DYK is still at an impasse, feel free to ping me for a Hail Mary ALT. :) —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 07:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @CurryTime7-24: Thank you for the additions. The only bit that I can find that is trashy enough for DYK is the bit about not liking regieoper. Silly old bat. She might as well demand that jazz players stop doing riffs and just play the tune, haha. Anyway, I've put it in ALTs 9 and 10 below. Some reviewers don't like quotation marks, so maybe they might ask for a bit of paraphrasing. The trouble is, I am not sure that paraphrasing would work, because it's the quotation itself which is funny. On the other hand, can we really put quotation marks around Google Translate? Meanwhile, in spite of the above panicking, I don't believe that there is any hurry on this template. The important thing is to get it right. Storye book (talk) 12:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt:. Storye book (talk) 12:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the pings, but I believe it's better I stay out, actually out of DYK at all. If you ask me, she shares view that with many others, and why she was called "legendary" doesn't show at all, but therefore better don't ask me, say "sexual" to tempt the broad readership to click, and perhaps 3% of those will get to how great she was. It's just not my way. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's fine, but please would you kindly clarify what you want us to do? Do you want us to carry on and get the nomination promoted with this type of hook (which is the only sort of hook that they will accept now)? After all, CurryTime7-24 has now done a lot of work to help us with this. Or do you want to close this nomination? I would rather see one appreciative person clicking through and reading that she is legendary, than no main-page-link at all to this excellent article, but the ultimate decision on that is up to you. Storye book (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ALT11: ... that "legendary" singer Galina Pisarenko disdained certain modern-style stage productions, telling people not to look? Source: "Both here and in the West they go crazy in their own way... Modernization and pornography on the stage are absolutely impossible for art, close the windows and doors!" (Google translation) and "legendary"
As I said, forget about me, keep calm and carry on ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Gerda, that is much appreciated. I hope we can end up with a hook that is not too objectionable. Storye book (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pisarenko had good reason to dislike regieoper (I happen to agree with her). Her remarks reminded me of Luigi Dallapiccola's rueful observation from the 1960s that people were no longer interested in hearing opera, but in seeing it. Anyway, let me try and come up with something more pleasing to Gerda (hopefully) when I return home later tonight. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Storye book (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just one more day, please. At the rate I'm going, I think this article will be at least twice the size of what it was when this DYK nom was started. Everybody's patience is very appreciated. :) —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 06:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Your hard work is much appreciated. Storye book (talk) 10:11, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everybody for your patience. I honestly could expand this article further considerably, but it's NYE and I gotta go! :) So with that said, I offer this newly expanded article and these ALTs. Hope they help to finally bring this DYK to a successful close!

  • ALT12: ... that when soprano Galina Pisarenko sang opera on a stage for the first time, she felt like she was "reborn"? Source: [2] "Именно в это партии я по-настоящему почувствовала себя певицей, и дальше стало значительно легче: открылись какие-то шлюзы, и стало все получаться. Это было буквально как второе рождение, я была так счастлива!"
  • ALT13: ... that soprano Galina Pisarenko studied to become a diplomat at the same time she was training to become an opera singer? Source: [3] "[Г. Писаренко] Я окончила среднюю школу с золотой медалью и поступила без всяких «подпорок» в Институт международных отношений [...] [А. Матусевич] Девочек в дипломаты тогда брали неохотно. [Г. Писаренко] Да, но все же брали. В нашей группе было даже три девочки. [...] Я не прерывала музыкальных занятий, все время училась параллельно."
  • ALT14: ... that Galina Pisarenko was called "the greatest Tatiana of them all" by Sviatoslav Richter? Source: [4] "С «лучшей из всех Татьян», как Рихтер называл Галину Писаренко [...]"
  • ALT15: ... that Russian soprano Galina Pisarenko could sing Robbie Burns' "Comin' Thro' the Rye" inflected with a "strong Scottish accent"? Source: [5] "There is nothing unusual about a Russian soprano like Galina Pisarenko being able to sing her favorite operatic role of Mimi, from 'La Boheme', in Italian. But it is surprising to hear her singing Robbie Burns' 'Comin' Thru the Rye' with a strong Scottish accent." —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Among the new proposals I like ALT12 and ALT13 the best. My issue with ALT13 is that her taking up diplomatic studies is only mentioned explicitly in the lede and without a reference (the body text mentions her studies at the school, but not explicitly mentioning diplomatic studies). ALT12 is cited inline; as the sources for both hooks are in Russian I am assuming good faith here. Once the issue with ALT13 is done I will approve both ALT12/ALT13. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just my 2ct: I believe that ALT12 is preferable, having more to do with her career, and would profit so much from mentioning "as Puccini's Musetta", which would say in three words 1) that she is a soprano, 2) that her first role was big (not the usual beginner's little thing), and 3) that this Russian singer was great for Italian opera. Many readers will have heard Musetta's famous waltz, Quando me'n vo', and will have it "in their ears" when they just read the character name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    listen to another Russian soprano --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @CurryTime7-24: Please could you kindly help with the ALT13 issue, mentioned above by Narutolovehinata5? Google Translate gives "I graduated from high school with a gold medal and entered the Institute of International Relations without any "props" [...] I did not interrupt my music lessons, I studied all the time in parallel." for your ALT13 source, so at the moment that is all that we non-Russian speakers are seeing. Storye book (talk) 09:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded the quote for ALT 13. It is never stated outright in the source interview for ALT13 that Pisarenko went to MGIMO to pursue a career in diplomacy, only implied. First by her interviewer who interjects with, "They didn't accept girls in the diplomatic corps back then"; to which Pisareno replied, "Right, yet they did. There were even three girls in our group." The second implication is her mention in the same interview of school friends with whom she remained in contact with, both of whom were by then diplomats. Finally, there was MGIMO itself, which at the time Pisarenko studied there was strictly for "international relations". It was only after the school was reorganized and she had to study at MSU as a result that she dropped international relations in favor of economics. If this is too vague, however, I'll be glad to withdraw ALT13. Scratch that, I'll just submit an amended ALT13 later today.
The wording of ALT12 seems fine to me. My goal was concision, not comprehensiveness (which is what the article is for). Pisarenko's performance was a "beginner's thing" in that it was a student performance for the conservatory's opera studio. Her professional debut did not occur until later; not with Puccini, but in Offenbach. Whether or not she had an especial predilection for Italian opera is debatable. She herself seems to have been very fond of French opera, whose diminished popularity she lamented. (It also makes up a large, perhaps the largest part of her extant discography.) She was a very versatile singer, at any rate. She sang the premieres of works by Dmitri Shostakovich, Boris Tchaikovsky, and Mieczysław Weinberg; she also was beloved for her chanteuse-like performances of pop songs for Soviet television. Anyway, I don't want to imply something misleading by the suggested amended wording. However, I did add "soprano" just to make things extra clear. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, kind of surprised that ALT15 hasn't gotten any traction. Guess I'm the only one whose expectations were delightfully subverted by the idea of Russian soprano being not just fluent in English, but also able to sing a beloved folk song with a Scottish accent, no less! :) —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, CurryTime7-24. Your efforts are appreciated. I agree about ALT15 - pity I'm not in a position to review it. I look forward to seeing your updates. Storye book (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the revised ALT, with a new source:

  • ALT13a: ... that soprano Galina Pisarenko studied economics, English, and Norwegian at the same time she was studying to become a professional opera singer? (Source: [6] "После окончания школы Писаренко поступила в музыкальное училище, созданное при консерватории уже как певица. [...] Но музыкальным образованием Писаренко не ограничивалась. Таково было условие бабушки, которая обещала разрешить внучке петь, если она поступит в вуз по более «серьезной» профессии. [...] После трех лет обучения Писаренко попала в число студентов, отчисленных в связи с реорганизацией учебного заведения, таким студентам предложили поступить на льготных условиях в любой вуз гуманитарного профиля. Писаренко выбрала МГУ (факультет экономики), а благодаря прекрасной языковой подготовке ей было разрешено обучаться параллельно в Институте иностранных языков (как основной язык она изучала английский, а как второй – норвежский). Таким образом, Писаренко получила три высших образования – музыкальное, экономическое и языковое, причем училась она в трех вузах одновременно [...]") —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're OK on hooks (16 and counting, folks!), so no need for more. If you can help out another way, I would be very grateful. I'm tip-toeing around what needs to be done and urging you to read between my lines... because DYK rules have confounded me in the past and I don't want to inadvertently prolong this nomination further. :P —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 05:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif: If, as you say, you are happy with ALT13a, please would you kindly add a green tick to your comment above? Thank you. Storye book (talk) 09:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting for Kingsif to respond as they were the one asked to give the final tick, but I'd be okay with ALT13a. I actually think ALT15 would have made a decent hook but the mention of the artist gave me pause since not everyone may be familiar with Burns, plus review quote hooks about opera performers have underperformed as of late. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Narutolovehinata5, you really make me laugh sometimes. You have never heard of Robbie Burns, who wrote Auld Lang Syne.? Well, you will be very pleased to know that most English-speaking people have heard of him. Storye book (talk) 12:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard of Robert Burns before but not Robbie, so that might be an issue. Also, while most people are probably at least vaguely familiar with Auld Lang Syne, they may be less familiar with its writer. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article meets requirements. Alt13a is interesting, in the article, and supported by a source that checks out on Google translate. If you want other hooks to be looked at, please ping me. Kingsif (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Galina_Pisarenko&oldid=1209263532"