Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Olga Rudge/archive1
Yet another cool page authored by Giano. This biography of a talented and successful concert violinist, the life companion for almost fifty years of the poet Ezra Pound, is comprehensive, well-referenced and well-written, and maintains a delicate balance between Rudge's own achievements and her (more famous) relationship with Pound. Disclosure: I've done a superficial copyedit. Bishonen | talk 19:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC).
- Oppose. It is recommended that articles go for peer review before being nominated for featured article, and this one hasn't. It's written in an inappropriate tone, of which the lead is the best example. "A gifted and successful musician, her considerable talents and fame have been eclipsed by those of her lover in whose shade she appeared content to remain." It is not up to us to label her "a gifted and successful musician", and much less to judge that her lover eclipsed her. This is original research. Also, this article is really about Ezra Pound, not about Rudge. I would favor merging into Ezra Pound. JoaoRicardotalk 20:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Well, I don't agree (obviously). It's not a contentious claim that Pound is better known than Rudge, or even that she's best known as his mistress. These facts are in the common domain, they're treated as self-evidently true in all biographical commentary on Rudge. Also, the Lead may not be the best section to exemplify supposed Original Research from; the Lead is a summary of the article as a whole, it repeats and condenses points that are made at more length further down, and sourced inline further down (hopefully, and if they're points that require inline sourcing). There's room for disagreement here, no doubt, but for myself I don't see any advantage in uglifying the lead by inlining the sources for the same facts there as well, in what would inevitably be a crowded way. But perhaps you also have examples from the rest of the article of statements that you consider OR ? That could be very helpful, so it would be great if you could mention anything like that. I don't quite know what to make of the suggestion of merging with Ezra Pound; looking at that article, a very well-written and well-balanced one (largely the work of Filiocht), it just seems to me obvious that a merge would utterly unbalance it, making it be half about Pound, half about Rudge. Or do you mean the Rudge bio needs to be jettisoned — not be in Wikipedia at all — and anything about Pound in Olga Rudge merged into Ezra Pound? I have to say I don't see the advantage. Could you please explain a bit more? Bishonen | talk 13:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC).
- Bishonen, I am sorry if I didn't make myself clear. When I wrote above "This is original research", I was refering to that specific sentence, and not to the whole article. I agree that it is a fact that Pound is better known than Rudge (I hadn't heard of her myself), but I don't think this allows us to say that Pound "eclipsed" her. To me, this sounds like there was some competition, or as if she was frustrated about the situation. That's why it sounds more like an opinion than a fact. And about her talent, please see Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. As for merging, what I would prefer is that this article be about Olga Rudge. If there is no information in Olga Rudge's life that is both notable and unrelated to Pound, then I don't see any reason to give her an article. JoaoRicardotalk 16:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Regarding your point of the "eclipse" the article states in the lead that she did not appear frustrated by the situation: "in whose shade she appeared content to remain". Her "talent" is fully referenced. I think also that term is also justified by her continuing to fill leading European concert halls in Europe for years. That alone makes her worthy of an article. Like many "good women behind the man" her life is inextricably linked with that of her partner, but there is also a lot of information there about her - her revival of Vivaldi for instance, her concerts, her behaviour towards her child, her life after Pound's death. I have been very careful to only state referenced facts - but I hope this article gives people an interest or an idea about a very enigmatic, little known but interesting woman who inspired what many feel was a great poet - and also achieved a few worthy things of her own in the musical world. Giano | talk 21:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- I believe the fact still remains that talent and eclipse are matters of opinion, not fact. If there is anything notable to say about her that does not concern Pound, please say it in the article, not here. As it stands, I don't see any reason to have an article on her. JoaoRicardotalk 16:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Are you seriously suggesting that a successful female concern violinist who performed to paying audiences from 1916 to the Second World War, including leading a revival of the works of Vivaldi, is notable only as the mistress of her more-famous man friend, and that all of this article should be incorporated into Ezra Pound? And you are the one saying it is original research to say that he eclipsed her (despite admittedly, like many of us, never having heard of her but being aware of him)! Her relationship with Pound lasted for around half of her life, from 1920 or 1923 to 1972, so it is hardly surprising that he is a large part of her life, particularly her more active younger years. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks ALoan could not have put it better myself. Can I just say I am delighted Bishonen nominated Olga. I had never heard of Olga Rudge either until a chance remark I heard in Venice over Christmas. I bought a couple of books and wrote the page up over the Christmas holidays. FA or not, this was a break from my usual stuff and a bit of fun. I am thrilled she is at last getting some deserved publicity (and yes that is my POV). Seriously she is worthy of an article,and I am very surprised that people feel (whatever the page's faults) the article does not convey that. Giano | talk 19:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'm noticing a bit of agressiveness here. ALoan, what I am saying is that this article, as it currently stands (or rather as it stood when I last read it a few days ago) has more to say about Ezra Pound than about Olga Rudge. The article on Wikipedia which covers information on this poet is located at Ezra Pound. Is Rudge article-worthy? I have no idea, since I know nothing about her except what's stated in the article. But if she is article-worthy, the article, in my view, fails to establish that. Forgive me if I seem rude, but I think this discussion is goind round and round with everyone (including me, by force of the circunstances) just repeating their arguments. Maybe we should agree to disagree? JoaoRicardotalk 14:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- I just do not understand your argument. The article is exactly as it was when nominated, and gives a great deal of information about her. She is extremely worthy of an article. Could you just read it again, perhaps it did not download properly on your screen last time. Giano | talk 14:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Are you seriously suggesting that a successful female concern violinist who performed to paying audiences from 1916 to the Second World War, including leading a revival of the works of Vivaldi, is notable only as the mistress of her more-famous man friend, and that all of this article should be incorporated into Ezra Pound? And you are the one saying it is original research to say that he eclipsed her (despite admittedly, like many of us, never having heard of her but being aware of him)! Her relationship with Pound lasted for around half of her life, from 1920 or 1923 to 1972, so it is hardly surprising that he is a large part of her life, particularly her more active younger years. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- I believe the fact still remains that talent and eclipse are matters of opinion, not fact. If there is anything notable to say about her that does not concern Pound, please say it in the article, not here. As it stands, I don't see any reason to have an article on her. JoaoRicardotalk 16:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Regarding your point of the "eclipse" the article states in the lead that she did not appear frustrated by the situation: "in whose shade she appeared content to remain". Her "talent" is fully referenced. I think also that term is also justified by her continuing to fill leading European concert halls in Europe for years. That alone makes her worthy of an article. Like many "good women behind the man" her life is inextricably linked with that of her partner, but there is also a lot of information there about her - her revival of Vivaldi for instance, her concerts, her behaviour towards her child, her life after Pound's death. I have been very careful to only state referenced facts - but I hope this article gives people an interest or an idea about a very enigmatic, little known but interesting woman who inspired what many feel was a great poet - and also achieved a few worthy things of her own in the musical world. Giano | talk 21:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Bishonen, I am sorry if I didn't make myself clear. When I wrote above "This is original research", I was refering to that specific sentence, and not to the whole article. I agree that it is a fact that Pound is better known than Rudge (I hadn't heard of her myself), but I don't think this allows us to say that Pound "eclipsed" her. To me, this sounds like there was some competition, or as if she was frustrated about the situation. That's why it sounds more like an opinion than a fact. And about her talent, please see Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. As for merging, what I would prefer is that this article be about Olga Rudge. If there is no information in Olga Rudge's life that is both notable and unrelated to Pound, then I don't see any reason to give her an article. JoaoRicardotalk 16:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, too: I haven't gone through all of the article, but it's a bit ... wrong ... to go claiming "original research" on a set of adjectives in the lead. The lead is an introduction and overview. Inasmuch as the article provides the evidence (she appeared in the concert hall, was praised by other serious musicians), it's not exactly original research to summarize by saying that she was a talented musician up in the lead. I understand disquiet over attendant fame, but I don't think this is attendant fame. She was a centerpoint in the salon culture of expatriots, and, although she hasn't been remembered very well, she's no less famous than Sylvia Beech, for example, and we'd never want Vivian Eliot merged in with T. S. Eliot. Geogre 19:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Apparently, we don't want Vivian Eliot here at all. ;) Please see my reply to Bishonen above. JoaoRicardotalk 16:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Well, I don't agree (obviously). It's not a contentious claim that Pound is better known than Rudge, or even that she's best known as his mistress. These facts are in the common domain, they're treated as self-evidently true in all biographical commentary on Rudge. Also, the Lead may not be the best section to exemplify supposed Original Research from; the Lead is a summary of the article as a whole, it repeats and condenses points that are made at more length further down, and sourced inline further down (hopefully, and if they're points that require inline sourcing). There's room for disagreement here, no doubt, but for myself I don't see any advantage in uglifying the lead by inlining the sources for the same facts there as well, in what would inevitably be a crowded way. But perhaps you also have examples from the rest of the article of statements that you consider OR ? That could be very helpful, so it would be great if you could mention anything like that. I don't quite know what to make of the suggestion of merging with Ezra Pound; looking at that article, a very well-written and well-balanced one (largely the work of Filiocht), it just seems to me obvious that a merge would utterly unbalance it, making it be half about Pound, half about Rudge. Or do you mean the Rudge bio needs to be jettisoned — not be in Wikipedia at all — and anything about Pound in Olga Rudge merged into Ezra Pound? I have to say I don't see the advantage. Could you please explain a bit more? Bishonen | talk 13:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC).
- Comment - I like it, but as a relatively new page, only a couple of weeks in its expanded form, I have to say I think it would benefit from a period on WP:PR. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)