Wikipedia:Peer review/Treemonisha/archive1

Treemonisha

I've created a pretty comprehensive page on Scott Joplin's opera, Treemonisha. I've tried to be thorough about sources, particularly based on the limited amount of information available. I'd like to get some feedback on it. Thank you in advance! LuxPerpetua 21:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I think a more comprehensive plot summary would be appropriate, maybe a total of three or four paragraphs (maybe one paragraph per act, assuming it's divided into acts). Is there a reason Freddie Alexander is linked? Was she a famous singer in her own right or anything? If not, she should be de-linked. The qualifier about Edward Berlin being Joplin's "foremost biographer" should be removed -- a discussion of Joplin biographies and their receptions would be appropriate at Scott Joplin, but is out of place and not relevant here (especially unsourced claims about their relative merits). I'd like to see some more scholarly views of the work -- I've got a couple books that might say something useful, so I'll see what I can find. Tuf-Kat 20:10, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Couple of things:

• Freddie Alexander gets occasional, brief mention in lists of black women's history, mostly because she was Scott Joplin's wife, but also because she was a fairly outspoken activist, which is, I believe, how they met. I could be wrong. At any rate, I removed the wikification.
• The qualifier about Berlin was added because because Berlin has been generally considered to be the most accurate of all of Joplin's biographers. Particularly after Joplin's death, there were many biographies written that were completely inaccurate, and for many years, biographies and general knowledge of Joplin was based on these apochryphal stories. From everything I've read (and studied in college), Berlin was the first author to actually research Joplin's life and clarify what was real and what was not, and is held by the Joplin historical society/the Joplin family to be a credible authority, if not THE authority, on Joplin. I wanted to be clear that it was coming from someone who had researched enough to make qualified statements - not someone just guessing. If you have a suggestion on how to more clearly articulate that, I'd be happy to hear it. :) (Let me see if I can find the statement made by the Joplin family about his work, actually. I could use that as a resource in establishing credibility.)
• Re: scholarly views on the work, which is what I assume you're talking about, no? There are several schools of thought on the work, which are sort of related to each other. (1) Some people claim that the opera is too simplistic, the plot has holes (yes, it does), and that it's unrefined. (2) Everyone (particularly the folks from category one) pretty much acknowledges that it's hard to really objectively critique Treemonisha. Despite the fact that Joplin had a piano-vocal score published, it never actually went through the revision process that most operas go through before it ever is presented to the public. The operas you see by Mozart or whomever today would have been cut, added to, plot details changed, etc, as it was worked out on stage. Basically, any performance of it you see is a performance of an unfinished work. (3)There is debate over how much exposure Joplin actually had to grand opera, and as such, his intentions with Treemonisha. As a grand opera on the scale of Puccini or Verdi, Treemonisha is pretty laughable. As a folk opera, it is fine. Opinions on the work basically depend on which camp you place Treemonisha in... LuxPerpetua 17:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, the lead should be just two or three paragraphs. Much of what's there now ought to be under "history" or something. Tuf-Kat 20:12, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Not sure how to split that up, though? The whole history is only a few paragraphs long. I'll think upon it. Thanks! LuxPerpetua 17:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I expanded the lead a bit with some of my sources, and changed the formatting and organization of the references. There's now a references section for works that are actually cited in the article, and an external links and further reading for those that aren't. It'd be nice to have some more images and snippets of a recording of a performance, but I don't think those're necessary -- it might worth seeing if anyone has anything they're willing to license appropriately. Tuf-Kat 22:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't certain on how to list resources, and for whatever reason, the Wiki servers been so slow lately that when I tried to pull up stuff, half the time it times out before I can get to it. I've been trying to load this page for over an hour now. :( Anyway, I'll see what I can do about pics and clips, but I'm not sure if the right to perform this is actually in the public domain, as his estate still exists and gets royalties for recordings and publishings. LuxPerpetua 20:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)