Template:Did you know nominations/Paula Lizell

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 SL93 (talk) 04:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Paula Lizell

(

)

Paula Lizell in 1905

... that Paula Lizell (pictured in costume) began her career at the Royal Swedish Opera in 1893 as Mathilde in Rossini's William Tell? Source: several
- Reviewed: Göğceli Mosque

Created by Ipigott (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 17:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC).

The article is new enough and long enough and is free from close paraphrasing, and a QPQ has been done. The paragraph that starts with "She later worked as a drama teacher..." is completely unsourced and needs to be referenced. In addition, the hook basically amounts to "did you know that opera singer A played the role B in opera C". Can something else be proposed here, perhaps something about her specifically? Perhaps something about her personal life or reviews about her career? Rather than yet another role hook, perhaps something interesting or unique about Lizell can be highlighted instead? Courtesy ping to Ipigott and asking for their input for a new hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Reading through the article, I think a hook about her being considered one of the leading sopranos of the Royal Swedish Opera could work. I imagine that's a much bigger deal than her playing Mathilde. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

You could add a word to career, but Mathilde tells everybody who knows or clicks what kind of soprano. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I only noticed your last comment. It is not a role hook, - when will you understand? I'd prefer something about the role pictured. Ipigott, is that possible, although the opera has no article (yet). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The hook basically says "did you know that she played this role?". That's pretty much a role hook. If the hook instead went something like "DYK that Lizell began her career as Mathilde after so-and-so", that wouldn't really be a role hook since the focus is not on the role itself but on its relationship to something else. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Not too keen on developing a hook around the image. How about:

ALT1: ... that Paula Lizell (pictured in costume), a former star of the Royal Swedish Opera, advanced from coloratura to dramatic Wagnerian roles? Source: several

I won't fight the author, but find that typical for being general where we could be precise. If only Wagner is mentioned, people would expect Brünnhilde and Isolde, but no, she was Senta and Eva. We don't need a year when the image is taken, which clearly shows the period, but should add it if not.

ALT2: ... that Paula Lizell (pictured in costume) began her starring career at the Royal Swedish Opera as Rossini's Mathilde and moved on to Wagner's Senta? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I think ALT1 is a decent good hook so I think we can go with that. Just provide a footnote for the sentence that goes "After initially performing mostly coloratura roles" and this will be good to go. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:28, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy ping Ipigott Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Can you please provide a footnote for the sentence I brought up above? Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

sorry, no, I don't know the sources, and won't dig for something telling about her what we could also say for 20 others --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Can you please provide the needed footnote so that this nomination can be approved? Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

just a reminder that ALT2 is sufficiently sourced --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5 I am not very familiar with the DYK process and don't understand what exactly what you want me to do. In any case, as far as I can see Gerda Arendt would prefer to keep to ALT2 which is more specific. As she is the nominator, I think we should stick to that.--Ipigott (talk) 12:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5 asked me on my talk page to take a look here. I will say that, while ALT2 is more detailed, ALT1 is slightly shorter and broader. I tried to put myself into the position of an average reader when reading these hooks. For ALT2, a reader may ask the following questions:

What is the purpose of describing Mathilde as "Rossini's Mathilde" if the character is already linked? (I.e. what extra information does this provide? Same applies for Wagner's Senta.)
How is the role of Senta perceived as better, compared to the role of Mathilde?
How come the hook mentions Senta specifically? There are at least three other characters listed in the same sentence. My understanding is that Wagner was known for his dramas, but most readers may not know that.

For ALT1, on the other hand, a reader may ask:

What is coloratura? (Readers can just hover their cursor over the link to get the answer, though.)

If ALT1 were to be used, a reader would likely be less confused than if ALT2 were used. I understand that ALT2 gives readers more information about the subject compared to ALT1, and I can see the intention behind this. On the other hand, a shorter hook may entice readers to click on the article so they can read the whole page. If we give away too much information in the hook, readers may no longer be inclined to click on the article, because they have already learned the main points of the article after reading the hook. People may instead spend their time clicking on the other links in the hook, which is probably not optimal. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your view. Mine is of course different ;) - I think that readers who don't know what coloratura means will be bored by the article, and people who know what it means will be bored by the hook. - I think that readers who don't not know that Rossini stands for Italian (often light) opera and Wagner for German (often heavy) opera will be bored by the article. It's an article about a specific woman, and the key to the hook is the image. Why should we say anything about her which his also true for many others? My favourite is the original hook, offering the commonly known Rossini and a character not yet known, to make curious. - I am not sure that moving from coloratura soprano to dramatischer Sopran is an improvement, btw. Loss of flexibilty. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, let me offer a compromise. Just duplicate reference #5 to the sentence that ends with "Marguerite in Meyerbeer's Les Huguenots." Then I will approve both ALT1 and ALT2 and leave the final choice to the promoter. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

As the referencing issue is addressed, both ALT1 and ALT2 are now approved. I am leaving the final choice to the promoter (although for the record my preferred hook remains ALT1). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)