Template:Did you know nominations/Emily Pogorelc

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Template:Did you know nominations
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 Z1720 (talk) 01:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Emily Pogorelc

(
)

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 19:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC).

  • The article looks great. Given that the hook represents a single opinion, rather than an established fact or a consensus, I think it could be edited to be stronger and hookier. That said, I'm not very experienced with DYK, so I'd value a second opinion. Noahfgodard (talk) 08:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
    Thank you for the review! I think the quotation marks should make clear enough that it's not a fact. Adding "according to a critic" would make it clumsy, and also what follows is "as usual" - it's really a gift of an aria, - perhaps we should mention that, just Gianni Schicchi is a FA, so I'd prefer a link to that.
    ALT1: ... that Emily Pogorelc, an American soprano who won the 2018 "Most Promising Talent" prize in Glyndebourne, appeared as Cherubino in Mozart's Le nozze di Figaro at the Bavarian State Opera's 2021 summer festival? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Chiming in with a second opinion since the reviewer asked for one. ALT1 is too long (it's above 200 characters) and is frankly not interesting to a broad audience. I would actually prefer a revised version of the original hook, focusing on the "stopped the show" part (although maybe I think in this case the "Most Promising Talent" prize part will need to be removed or spun off into its own hook). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
    ALT1a: ... that Emily Pogorelc, who won the 2018 "Most Promising Talent" prize in Glyndebourne, appeared as Mozart's Cherubino at the Bavarian State Opera's 2021 summer festival?
    I gave you a shortened version of ALT1. "most Promising" is something every reader should understand, I am not inclined to drop that. From then on, we can say something new. Glyndebourne is known as the place for young talents, and that's good to know for those who don't already. That the promise came true only 3 years later is worth telling. I'm not happy about the "stopped the show" thingy, because - as the ref says - that usually happens with the particular aria, so nothing too specific about her. (The music is often used in advertisement, sounding sweet and sentimental, and people not listening to the Italian won't realise that she threatens to take her life.)
    By shortening, I dropped some quirkiness from ALT1, 1) that she is American inspite of her last name, 2) that she is soprano while Cherubino - a trousers role - is usually sung by a mezzo-soprano (although Mozart wrote soprano). We could drop "summer festival" also but I think it has a nice festival ring to it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Frankly we probably need to drop ALT1a. There is growing consensus at WT:DYK that we have to move away from these role hooks. Plus ALT1a, while shorter than the original, doesn't really solve the main issue that none of the hook facts mentioned are interesting to those who are unfamiliar with opera. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
What in "most promising young talent" is interesting for all, and once we pleased all, we can something extra did you not understand? Perhaps Noahfgodard could now resume the review? (A role hook is a hook that mentions a role and nothing else. This is not a role hook.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Maybe instead the hook could just focus on the "Most Promising Talent" prize part? Something like "... that Emily Pogorelc won the 2018 "Most Promising Talent" prize in Glyndebourne?" Such a hook would be shorter and catchier, and is also not reliant on familiarity with opera roles. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
What in that "the second half says that the promise was kept, by appearing at a major house in such a short" time did you not understand? - Which role really doesn't matter, but tells us her voice is more for Mozart than Wagner, and she got a rather large role. You don't have to know the opera. Being specific seems better to me than saying: some important role at some important opera house. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
The context you are talking about would not be clear to readers. If your intent is that she won a "most promising" award, then "fulfilled that promise" by playing such-and-such role, it's not an obvious connection. The readers won't get it even if you do. I know Wagner, I know Mozart, I know Figaro, and even I didn't get the "tells us her voice is more for Mozart than Wagner" connection, and I have doubts that anyone but the most dedicated classical music fans would get it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 19:31, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Circles. They can be happy with the first part. I want to tell the other. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Storye book, you have helped to better understanding before. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
I reviewed now Template:Did you know nominations/Hose's broadbill. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit conflict. I had just written the following, so I'll publish it anyway.

The type of singer that we are dealing with here

Well, you've got a jolly good one here. Yes, she is a Mozarter for sure - properly disciplined, hits every note, makes the difficult sound soooo easy, a joy to listen to - I clapped at the end of this. Just one point - she needs more training on voice production on the very top notes, but I have been very spoiled listening to the Soviet Russian singers, who were perfect (all dead now). For whoever wants to know, here is an oversimplified exaggeration but it's a start - a good singer of Mozart can do all the above. A Wagner singer must belt it out over a very loud orchestra for many hours while still getting it right. A Wagner singer needs to be born with a massively resonant voice and lungs of steel. A singer of Mozart needs a brain and technique. They are not usually interchangeable because the technique is different. (Every opera singer will have a different point of view on that, but they would all agree that Mozart singers and Wagner singers are different).

The above discussion
  • 1. @Narutolovehinata5: I am sad that you have difficulty in appreciating the music that you have been listening to. We can't all understand everything, even when it is explained to us (I'm like that with car engines, baseball, loads of stuff) but we can respect the fact that those subjects have a huge fanbase, and that the world does not revolve around us ignorant folk alone. Wikipedia is here to provide something for everyone; the same goes for DYK. The answer is not be be antagonistic when discussing DYK hooks. It is to provide something positive, as opposed to ripping everything apart and not supplying a useful solution. If I see a hook about a skater doing a double-triple tiddley-pom jump, I would request that the jump name be linked to an explanation in the article, so that the clickbait works via the audience curiosity to understand. I would ask you one question. Why do you follow this subject around the templates with such fascination, jumping in to criticise something which you don't really understand (according to your above comment)? We are dealing with an expert here (no, not myself) - we are lucky to have that resource on WP - and you are also dealing with someone who is speaking English as a second language and sometimes needs support in making the language of hooks run smoothly. That is where you can really help, if you would like to. Please do that?
  • 2. @Gerda Arendt: Thank you for your patience. You have supplied us with a good, solid article, as you always do. Have you considered looking for some human-interest material to add to the article, to help us understand the person behind the work? A hook with a little of that, and a little of the musical achievement, might make a good balance and help us understand this gifted singer. Many decades ago I heard a very ancient and very great dame of the Shakespearian stage explaining some of her technique. She privately hated kids, babies and romance, but said she made her roles convincing by pretending that she was cradling a basket of puppies or kittens in her arms, or showing love to a horse. Well, it worked. I wonder what Emily Pogorelc was thinking of when she sang O mio babbino caro. Not all human-interest gossip is irrelevant. With this singer, her communication with the audience is very powerful and striking. She is not singing to herself, but to us. All professional singers do that to some extent, but she does it more. Do none of the sources remark on that?

Peace and love. Storye book (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, enlightening ;) - I didn't find that aspect in the sources, sorry. Want to search and be a co-nom? This article was a sweet little thing to do for women's month. Too late. (I saw Figaro, wrote articles on three of the sopranos, but only one appeared in March ...) Right now, I have a few heavy ones, such as Unita Blackwell to German, and Serhiy Kot both English and German where 90% of the sources are in a language in which I don't recognize characters, every line needs translation, and then interpreting what the translation may mean. (see other nom, perhaps, where we had confused Young Theatre and Youth Theatre for more than a decade, look for Molodyy.) Haven't done a thing for Easter yet. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I like ALT1, and I agree that the "quirkiness" of Pogorlec's being an American and a soprano are worth including. Perhaps a middle-ground between ALT1 and ALT1a would be most appropriate:

ALT1b: ... that Emily Pogorelc, an American soprano who won the 2018 "Most Promising Talent" prize in Glyndebourne, appeared as Mozart's Cherubino at the Bavarian State Opera's 2021 summer festival?
As I know it would be improper for me to approve my own ALT suggestion, Storye book or Narutolovehinata5, how do you feel about this? --Noahfgodard (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
I still think that we need to focus on the Most Promising Talent aspect am not really a fan of the "person A... played role B" format. As a compromise, I think we can just go with the Glyndebourne aspect and note that it's in the UK; perhaps readers will find it interesting that an American soprano was given an award by a British opera house. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Noahfgodard, what do you think. May we include that the promise came true, as in ALT1b? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, as you didn't sign I didn't realise you provided the good compromise :) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit conflict again - this is what I was writing:

  • @Gerda Arendt: @Narutolovehinata5: Thank you both. It is good to work together (sort of). ALT1b has 187 characters, and is fine for DYK. That hook is not just "A played role B". It says she is a talented American being successful in The Old Country and Yoorp - that's the point of the hook.
  • Sorry Gerda, I can't take on another article at the moment (I'm in the throes of a gloriously scandalous article, plus also this week have to make a difficult journey with a broken rib, to photograph an artwork hidden for years in an attic, for a planned lecture - all good fun but distracting). Meanwhile this might add something to the article. (Quote: "she made her debut with Opera Philadelphia in Daniel Schnyder’s Charlie Parker’s Yardbird, singing Chan Parker in the opera’s New York premiere. It was the first opera to be performed at the historic Apollo Theatre in Harlem and was broadcast ...".) Storye book (talk) 10:46, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: So sorry about the signature mix-up! Yes, ALT1b was my suggestion. --Noahfgodard (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
maybe we can make the "promise fulfilled" angle a tad more explicit by making some cuts: theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
ALT1c: ... that American soprano Emily Pogorelc went from winning the 2018 "Most Promising Talent" prize in Glyndebourne to a major role in a Mozart opera at the 2021 Bavarian State Opera?
I did my best with it, but it's quite a few names and dates. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for a good step forward! - Further up, I said already why I don't like "a major role in a Mozart opera", - there are about 40, why not say precisely which? - It will not hurt those who know, and the others can find out. Mozart opera is also Easter egg, linking to only one, and in that one, there are four soprano roles, and hers is the third in "majority", - it would be almost misleading. The performance year is not too important because as 2018 isn't long ago it doesn't matter if 2021 or 2022. Much shorter:
ALT1d: ... that American soprano Emily Pogorelc went from winning the 2018 "Most Promising Talent" prize in Glyndebourne to appearing as Mozart's Cherubino at the Bavarian State Opera?
We even have a redirect for
Cherubino, and it's an interesting role: a young man who is in love with everyone female, and is dressed as a girl in the story. 1786. --Gerda Arendt (talk
) 08:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
ALT1d is fine. It is interesting, it only contains one date, and it follows the rules. I approve this hook. Storye book (talk) 09:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
What is worrying me about the above discussion about hook content for an article about opera, is that people have come in judging it on a different basis from say, football, baseball, and other popular cultural activities. Those subjects are allowed to have detail in the hooks because the fans love detail, e.g. blah sportsperson did blah in the (date) (fixture name) and then went on to do blah in the (date) (more important fixture name). People are objecting to opera having hooks like that because they are seeing opera as elitist and treating it as a pariah. Opera fans like detail too, and are much more likely to give the article a view if the hook has that special specific detail. Thus "a major role" instead of "Cherubino" may not be intended to be patronising, but it is patronising. If a genius sportsperson became captain of a top team, you wouldn't just say they'd been given a "major role", would you? Similarly, on a football/baseball nom template, we bow to the knowledge of the expert who has written the article, and to other sports-fan editors who come in to the template to help. But opera subjects have to be aimed only at those who have only ever listened to popular music? Really? So, reviewers, I'm asking you nicely. Please kindly consider treating with respect the expertise of the article creators and nominators of opera subjects. Storye book (talk) 09:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, - I think that the comparison of an opera role to a position (not just some fictional portrayal) is enlightening. In alphabetic order: User:Narutolovehinata5, Noahfgodard, Storye book, you could approve ALT1d. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I had already approved it above, but was not clear enough. I have now clarified it. Storye book (talk) 10:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The bot needs an icon. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
I think ALT1d works as a compromise since it doesn't actually focus on the role and works more as a progression hook rather than a simple "she played this role" hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
To reply to Store book's comment above, the main issue is that opera is generally a much more niche topic than sports. That isn't necessarily a problem, it's just that because general readers are less likely to be familiar with opera-related information compared to sports-related information. This means that context essential to understanding and appreciating a hook is frequently absent on the part of the typical reader. A performer winning an award at Glyndebourne (a place that is probably less familiar outside of classical music circles) is less likely to be an obvious "big deal" compared to an athlete winning Rookie of the Year in a major sports league (for example, the NBA). Opera is such a niche topic that it's at a disadvantage when it comes to hook interest, which makes giving context as to why such and such is a big deal important. Speaking as someone who myself writes and contributors to relatively niche subjects, it's admittedly challenging to make hooks about them appeal to broad audiences. It's not impossible, but it is challenging. The point here is that opera is a niche topic and it's a bit too much to expect that typical readers would know much of the context needed to appreciate such technical hooks. I think more creativity would help solve this issue: instead of focusing too much on hooks about an opera performer playing such-and-such role, try highlight something unusual about them. Elena Tsallagova was a good example of this: the hook about her did not focus on her playing a specific role, but about the way she acted ("looking around a corner"), which was considered unusual. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5:. Hehe. Not only have you merely repeated yourself unnecessarily (doubled down in US, I believe?), but you have done the same thing with your hypothetically acceptable sports hook, as you are asking us not to do with an opera hook. In the UK we do not use the word "rookie" (I guess from US films it means someone new to the field?). And I have no idea what NBA is, but I guess it's some sort of sports organisation? If you had linked those words, it would have been OK, because I could have then looked it up. The words connected with opera in the above hooks are already linked so that we can look them up. Our WP audience is not stupid.
Moreover, a hook for a niche subject needs to be targeted, just as we need to target advertising to the subject's perceived fanbase or appropriate group. For example, if we create a manga hook in a non-specific and explanatory manner, concentrating on cute side-issues rather than the actual manga details, no-one will click on it. If we fill the hook with specifics and links that are well-known to manga fans, they will all click on it - so the manga article then gets more views than if you tried to target it broadly.
I don't believe that opera is a niche subject. The word "niche" in that context just means something we don't know much about. But people are far more curious about subjects which are treated with respect, that you'd think. One of the differences between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligent people are more likely to be curious and ask questions - or look it up. Remember when George W. Bush was accused of being stupid, and the response was that he was not stupid, he was "uncurious" and (in the UK at least) we all laughed our heads off. Well, our reader-public is not stupid. It's intelligent and curious, and if you link "Cherubino" they can look it up. Don't be afraid of, and don't dismiss things you don't understand. And most of all, don't try to minimise or distract from things you don't understand. Our WP audience comes to WP because they want to understand something new. Storye book (talk) 12:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
repeating: the bot needs an icon or this will sit here forever (talking about repeating) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Good to go with ALT1d. I understand that we all agree on this one. Thank you for your patience, everyone. ;) Storye book (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
    @Gerda Arendt, Storye book, and Narutolovehinata5: I was going to promote this, but I could not verify in any of the article's sources that she appeared as Mozart's Cherubino at the Bavarian State Opera. Which source verifies this, and can the reference be placed immediately after the sentence in the article? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    good question, and it was all so long ago that I had to think ... - I went for Lauretta, remember, and sourced that. Now, I know I didn't make this up, and found it in one of the external links. As that may not be regarded as reliable, I searched further and found two refs, one a site in English that has two pics of her in the role, and the dates in July 2021, and another, a review in French. Both call it Munich Opera Festival, so that's probably what we should also use. (Remember, I said "summer festival" in an earlier hook.) The festival is run by the state opera, so naming that is not wrong. - I saw her in the role at the Bavarian State Opera on 11 March, but I am no reliable source ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    @Gerda Arendt: From my interpretation of your comment above, it seems like the wording of ALT1d needs an update. Can you post an ALT1e below that has the correct wording? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    define "needs" - well, how is this:
    ALT1e: ... that American soprano Emily Pogorelc went from winning the 2018 "Most Promising Talent" prize in Glyndebourne to appearing as Mozart's Cherubino at the Munich Opera Festival?
    ALT1f: ... that American soprano Emily Pogorelc went from winning the 2018 "Most Promising Talent" prize in Glyndebourne to appearing as Mozart's Cherubino at the Bavarian State Opera's summer festival?
    or the same without a link to that festival because it's not one of our greatest articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I approve ALT1e and ALT1f. Both are cited as already approved above, and also for the Munich Opera Festival and the Bavarian State Opera. My preference is for ALT1e because, from what Gerda says, the Munich State Opera is more strongly supported. Storye book (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Promoted ALT1e to
Prep 6. Z1720 (talk
) 01:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Emily_Pogorelc&oldid=1083101140"