Wikipedia:Peer review/Orpheus in the Underworld/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Orpheus in the Underworld[edit]

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

.

I started off with the intention of making a few improvements to this article but found myself doing more and more reading and have ended up doing a fairly comprehensive overhaul. How comprehensive? Is this article something like GAN calibre? Would thoughts of FAC be over-ambitious? Views welcome. More generally, I'd be glad of comments and suggestions for improving the article further. Tim riley talk 09:45, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cass's comments[edit]

The results of a quick read through on the 7 o'clock out of Shenfield whilst wedged between a Guardian reader and a teenager who is drenched in Lynx Africa and who's forcing the rest of the carriage to listen to the awful contents of his personal stereo. Whilst I maintain this awful seating position, here are a few observations to be getting on with, not necessarily in order. I'll read the rest today:

Background and first productions

  • "Between 1855 and 1858 Offenbach..." – is it not usual to link once in the lead and again on the first mention within the body?
  • "He told his friend the writer Hector Crémieux that when has was conductor at the Comedie-Française" – May need a revisit as there looks to be a typo lurking in there.

Continental Europe

  • "There were revivals at the same theatre in February and June 1861 (both given in French) and at the Theater an der Wien in January 1867. 1860 saw the work's local premieres in Brussels, Stockholm, Copenhagen and Berlin. In 1861 there were productions in Warsaw..." – It is besieged with dates. Unless you do, I don't see any reason not to swap the "in 1861" with "the following year", seeing as the last date you speak of is 1860.

CassiantoTalk 07:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these. All attended to. Looking forward to more at your leisure. Tim riley talk 12:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21st century worldwide

  • "as mentioned above" -- do we need such a casual reminder?

Audio

  • "Extended excerpts were recorded of two earlier productions: the 1960 Sadler's Wells production..." -- desperatley trying to avoid the productions/production repetition here, but it could be adjusted to "Extended excerpts were recorded of two earlier productions: in 1960 at Sadler's Wells, conducted by Alexander Faris, with June Bronhill as Eurydice and Eric Shilling as Jupiter, and the 1985 English National Opera production, conducted by Mark Elder, with Stuart Kale (Orpheus), Lilian Watson (Eurydice), Richard Angas (Jupiter) and Émile Belcourt (Pluto)."

Thats my lot, a wonderful read, aided by the Orphée aux enfers overture playing in the background. Sorry for the lengthy hiatus. CassiantoTalk 19:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apols for hiatus quite unnecessary. Thank you for these points – all addressed. Tim riley talk 08:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cg2p0B0u8m[edit]

It's already a really good article, congratulations, but these are a few initial thougths:

  • I think it's good to have Grove as a reference (their article is by Lamb). There are a few interesting snippets: Tayau actually played the violin, and Hervé was Jupiter in the 1878 Gaieté revival. I have the 1997 edition but I think you have access to the latest. I am happy to insert my reference if necesary.
  • I read the Grove article when preparing this revision, of course, and am quite surprised to see I haven't actually quoted it (though I have quoted from its article on the composer). Lamb isn't alone in mentioning that Tayau played the violin and Hervé played Jupiter in the 1878 Gaîté revival, but I'm not sure either is of central importance to the main narrative. I think of such pleasing incidental details as suitable material for footnotes, and will ponder adding these points thus. Tim riley talk 09:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact I found a convenient place in the main text for both points and have added accordingly. Tim riley talk 19:34, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Grove Orpheus article mentions a previous parody of the Gluck by Deshayes in 1793. I see that Hervé wrote a Le retour d'Ulysse in the early 60s.I will check to see if there are any other antecedents.
  • Interesting point. One might ask what Janin was so upset about if there were lots of precedents. Mind you, those you mention don't seem to have made much impact. Worth a note, though, as will be any others you find (and thank you so much for looking). Tim riley talk 09:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • just for the record, the only Hervé piece (possibly from the title) on a similar theme pre-dating Orphée appears to be Agamemnon, ou Le chameau à deux bosses (tragédie étrange, 1856).Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dedicated to Halévy who had made the first sketch of the libretto?
  • Indeed. The original vocal score and the published libretto of the Salle Choiseuil version are dedicated "À son ami Ludovic Halévy" (score) and "À mon ami Ludovic Halévy" (libretto). Halévy admitted to his part in the piece when it was revised in 1874, and is credited as co-author in the score and on posters etc. Tim riley talk 09:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Marseillaise melody is quoted fully in the chorus "Aux armes, dieux et demi-dieux!"
  • I have mentioned this (and the Auber piece parodied) in footnote 17. I was tempted to add that quoting the Marseillaise was risky, as it was officially banned at the time, but I couldn't find a source, though I'm sure I've read it somewhere. Tim riley talk 09:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've found a scholarly reference and have added the info. Tim riley talk 20:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jupiter's final conditions to Orphée are alexandrines according to Kaminski.
  • I don't doubt it, but I'm not keen to add an incidental detail that will have readers clicking away from my immortal prose into another article. Tim riley talk 09:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Villa Orphée - Offenbach's home
  • All the full-length sources mention it, but though it's right and proper to mention it in a book, I don't think it merits mention in a 4,000-word encyclopaedia article. I'd be interested in the views of other reviewers on this point. Tim riley talk 09:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Financial impact of piece - both for the Bouffes in 58 and Offenbach more personally in 74 (Kaminski)
  • I could mention the former easily, and will do so. Not so sure about the latter, particularly as his subsequent revival of the Gaîté version was not a financial success. I've said the 1874 version broke box-office records at the Gaîté, and I'm inclined to leave it at that.
I've added a line to the effect that the 1858 hit was sorely needed by Offenbach and the Bouffes. Tim riley talk 19:34, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, this list, published in August 1891, is interesting. It shows the takings at Paris box-offices between 1870 and then.
  • La fille de Madame Angot – 2,023,805 francs
  • Orphée aux enfers (Gaîté version) – 1,784,683
  • Les cloches de Corneville – 1,642,011
  • La mascotte – 1,372,522
  • Le petit duc – 1,259,770
  • Mlle Nitouche – 1,164,508
  • Miss Helyett (still running at time of report) – 1,000,000
  • La fille du tambour-major (Gaîté version) – 962,299
  • Giroflé-Girofia – 734,726
  • La petite mariée – 681,184
  • La fille du tambour major (Folies-dramatiques version) – 620,044
  • Le jour et la nuit – 568,847
  • Le grand mogol – 544,088
  • La cigale et la fourmi – 507,404
  • Mme Favart – 419,947
  • Somewhere I have read that the only music by a Jewish person that Nazi soldiers would have regularly heard in Paris during the occupation was the Galop at the Folies and similar joints.
  • I think that must be true, but I don't feel we can mention it here. Tim riley talk 09:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the para about the Pelly production, it's not quite right yet: the production premiered in Geneva with Massis, Beuron, Naouri and Huchet; in Lyon - which was filmed, there were Dessay, Beuron, Naori and Fouchécourt.
Now done. Tim riley talk 19:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would leave out the 2019 ENO production until it has actually happened.
  • I ought to do so in theory, I think, but that would mean taking out the Salzburg and Vienna revivals too, which I'm reluctant to do. The announcements have been firmly made and booking is open, so I think I'll chance it. Tim riley talk 09:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for these. I'll enjoy working through them. Tim riley talk 07:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was right. I did enjoy working through them. Some really good stuff in there: thank you very much. Tim riley talk 09:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, thank you. I was just wondering whether one would say in English Thebes Town Council rather than Town Council of Thebes.... But thanks also for the expanded music section. Howat in his French piano music book says that the Mazurka from Coppelia is the Galop at a different tempo and time-signature - I cannot hear it, but he must know (no need to include of course.) I must now get back to EC's songs... Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've just listened several times to the Coppélia Mazurka and finally got what Howat means. It's the introductory bars, before the chorus comes in with "Le bal c'est original". Are you working on Chabrier's songs? I hope so, and look forward, if so, to seeing the result of your researches in due course. Tim riley talk 23:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will try again. Yes the songs are progressing, hopefully not too long now.Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More
  • Sorry, a second bite of the cherry – I don't think that "Public Opinion explains who she is – the guardian of morality ("Qui suis-je? du Théâtre Antique"). She seeks to rework the story of Orphée (Orpheus) and Eurydice – who, despite being husband and wife, loathe each other – into a moral tale for the ages." is an exact translation of OP's words before the curtain, judging by Wikisource. I think she is more saying that she will be the deus ex machina who will intervene and ensure that the two main characters in this version are not unfaithful. (The original legend is a moral tale) Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not wishing to park my tanks on anyone's lawn, I applied a light hand to the existing synopsis when I started overhauling the article. Too light, perhaps. I entirely agree with what you say. What about this wording instead?:
Public Opinion explains to the audience that unlike the chorus in Ancient Greek plays she does not merely comment on the action, but intervenes in it, to make sure the story maintains a high moral tone. Then go on as the text stands from "Her efforts are hampered". Will that serve, do you think, mon général? – Tim riley talk 23:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, nice improvement. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Far be it from me to criticize James Harding, but are we sure there are/were choruses in Croquefer? The vocal score on IMSLP has none; some figurants are listed but they don't sing, either there or on wikisource.Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear me! This overhaul is turning into a spot-the-mistake competition so far as the sources are concerned. I've contradicted Faris and Traubner on the date of the Janin punch-up, and now you stick it to Harding! I must confess I know absolutely nothing of Croquefer, but I think it will be perfectly reasonable and safe just to delete mention of it from the footnote. After all, we do say "major works", and who is to say which of his one-acters is major? – Tim riley talk 23:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fine - I have only ever seen Croquefer as part of the film Offenbach's Secret. I was also surprised by there being a chorus in Ba-ta-clan it being early (had to check my recording), but maybe he got away with it as all they sing is gibberish, not proper words.Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only have a couple more queries on my list... having done Harding, let's just say I am checking reliable Tchaikovsky sources (David Brown, Garden, Abrahams so far, will look for others) to see if Hughes's comment is remotely credible. Nothing supporting him so far.
  • Well, you won't deny that Tchaikovsky rated Delibes, and you have recently told us here that Delibes borrowed from Orphée. And Offenbach's works beat Gogol, Shakespeare et al at the St Petersburg box office in the 1860s and 70s. Tim riley talk 20:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to add the wonderful excerpts conducted by Gressier for Pathé in 1953 and reissued a few times, and know there are good sources out there that praise the record, but of course now I want to use them cannot find...
  • I know not of these, and would regard it as a favour to me as well as to Wikipedia if you could dig up the details. If you can't find them now you can always add them later, and I hope you will. Tim riley talk 20:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kindly don't tempt a G&S devotee into heresy! I could turn out a whole paragraph on that without even pausing for breath, but it would be pure OR. Over the last fifty years I've read more about G&S than any reasonable person might be expected to, and I have never seen a word mentioning Orphée and Thespis together. (Though as I'm sure you know, the most performed modern "reconstruction" of Thespis borrows quite a bit from the score of Orphée.) Tim riley talk 20:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Carolyn Williams (2011) says that Thespis is "deeply indebted" to Orpheus, and Crowther (2000) also speculates that Gilbert had Orpheus in mind (p. 70 et seq.). Still, this is more relevant to the Thespis article than the Orpheus article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry but in the French revivals section the order of singers versus roles gets confusing, or rather changes from the first example - sometimes Eurydice is first, sometimes Orphée.Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Serves me right for unthinkingly following the order of the names in the Gänzl and Lamb listings. All are now, I think, in the order Orphée, Eurydice, Jupiter, Pluton (with one exception, of which more below). To find out who played what in the 1931 Mogador production I unearthed this review, which has some delightful drawings of the cast. Alas, for the multiple-cast version of 1984 I cannot find out which of the men played which roles. One could make some informed guesses, but that won't do. I've put the singers in alphabetical order there, which I think is the best I can do. Tim riley talk 09:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • "Orphée aux enfers, known in English as Orpheus in the Underworld, is a comic opera, with music by Jacques Offenbach and words by Ludovic Halévy and Hector Crémieux." can we do without the final comma?
  • "into an attempt to rescue her from the underworld" I might "into trying to rescue her from the underworld"
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking forward to it. Above two points both attended to. Tim riley talk 21:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is broad agreement among critics that the 1874 version, with its extended ballet sections, contains longueurs" Is there a suitable link or explanation for the final word?
  • Aargh! Now unlinked. The link puts a clunky great "wikt" in front of the word. Frightful! I've redrawn to avoid the hard word instead. Tim riley talk 10:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Galop Infernal or Galop infernal?
  • Definitely the latter. The rogue "Infernal" was a legacy from earlier revisions that I failed to spot. Now decapitated, or something. Tim riley talk 10:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " from 18-century pastoral vein" I'm not sure that 18-century is how we usually put it. There may be a need for a "the" preceding the numeral.
  • Tweaked.
  • "L'Opinion publique's" since you call her Public Opinion elsewhere, I would be consistent.
  • Yes, good. And I can't blame anyone but me for the inconsistency. Now amended. Tim riley talk 10:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on its mockery of venerable classical figures" Are we talking about the gods here or something else?
  • Tweaked. (I think he meant Gods, mortals, three-headed dogs, the lot really.) Tim riley talk 10:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The New York City Opera staged the work, conducted by Erich Leinsdorf, in 1956," I'm not sure that company was called that then.
  • I'm pretty sure that's what the article called the company, but will check when next at the British Library with online access to the NYT archive. Tim riley talk 10:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. "Erich Leinsdorf, new general director of the New York City Opera Company ...", NYT, 22 August 1956, p. 24. (I'm not sure he'd be my choice as an Offenbach conductor. I went a concert he gave with the BBC Symphony Orchestra in the early 1970s and he micro-conducted every semiquaver. Accurate, to be sure, but a bit constipated.) Tim riley talk 17:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I admire your inclusion of 2019 revivals but won't updating that and also the Operabase stat prove a chore?
  • I've tweaked the Operabase bit with WP:DATED in mind. As to the 2019 Vienna, Salzburg and London productions, they'll be history quite soon. I don't mind updating now and again. The listings are purely indicative rather than, God forbid, comprehensive. Tim riley talk 10:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure that the younger generation, with its expectation of digital, will always know what a "set" is, regarding recordings. It may be time to give some attention to availablability of works in digital format (both audio and video).
  • Footnote 2: "official reputation" reads a bit oddly.
  • Ditto.
  • Footnote 5: "The production, took 1,784,683 francs at the box office,[13] roughly equivalent in 2015 terms to €7,234,820.[14]" I don't know about the first comma. Should there be an "in" after "took"?
    • Comma expunged. I wouldn't expect an "in" here: perhaps an Engvar thing. Tim riley talk 10:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote 16: should it end with punctuation?
  • Footnote 17: "guyed" seems a bit informal.
  • In the references, you seem a bit torn between date formats (27 April 2019 v. 2019-04-27}}.
  • Blast! The gizmo that archives citations to the Wayback Machine uses the back-to-front format and bungs it into one's DMY references. I'll wait till the end of this PR – there may be one or two additional citations arising hence – and tidy up. Tim riley talk
That's all. An enjoyable read. Can I hope for Hoffman?--Wehwalt (talk) 07:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Blimey! I nearly went squiggle-eyed trying to work out the various editions of the Orphée score. I'll have to feel very strong before trying my luck with the mind-boggling permutations of Hoffmann, but I'll put it on my list. Meanwhile, thank you very much indeed for these helpful comments. Tim riley talk 10:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SC[edit]

Lead
  • "Orphée aux enfers, known in English as Orpheus in the Underworld": if our heading is the English version, is it normal to open with the original non-English version? I ask from a position of ignorance.
  • Interesting point. I'm pretty ignorant too, but strictly speaking I think I should seek consensus to retitle the article, because a Google search reveals a lot more entries for "Orphée aux enfers" (400,000+) than for "Orpheus in the Underworld" (350,000), but as a middle course I have led off with the more common title. I'll keep an eye on this, though, if it comes up at FAC. Tim riley talk 20:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Later: I've rejigged. Not sure it's ideal, and I'll be glad of any suggestions for improving it. Tim riley talk 10:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[For the record, I was in error about the 400,000 hits. On last test it was only about 120,000.] Tim riley talk 21:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • "he had told his friend the writer Hector Crémieux that when": would "he had told his friend, the writer Hector Crémieux, that when..." be a little better?
  • I don't think so, because adding the commas would turn a non-restrictive (describing) phrase into a restrictive (defining) one, making Crémieux Offenbach's only friend. Tim riley talk 20:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Plot (and music)
  • Why is "Galop infernal" in quote marks in the lead, but not in the music or plot sections?
  • Good question. I think really it should be in quotes throughout, and have made it so. Tim riley talk 20:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Music
  • "numbers as the Galop infernal Offenbach makes": comma after "infernal"?
  • elaborate scoring of the 'ballet des mouches'" extra quote marks in there, I think

That's it for now. I'll have another thorough read through at FCA, but on prose grounds this ticks the boxes. Enjoyable reading, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SchroCat. Some excellent points there. (Why can one never properly proofread one's own prose?) Much obliged! Tim riley talk 20:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ssven2[edit]

  • In the lead, is it "words" or "lyrics" or a bit of both? Just clarifying.
  • Either. The "words" include both the dialogue and the song lyrics. Tim riley talk 17:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you wikilink "conductor" here in case readers might get confused with these guys here lol.
  • Wikilink "libretto" for clarity's sake.
  • Some of the book, songbook, recording references/citations don't have the year in them. Some of them do. You can be consistent with that (including the year would be good).
  • All books have their publication years in the Sources section. For recordings I have added dates to those where I have referred to the box notes for timings etc. For those listed in the recordings section I don't intend to add dates because dates of issues and reissues in various countries differ too widely for this information to be meaningful for present purposes; the years given in the text are more helpful to the reader. Tim riley talk 17:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, this was an interesting read, Tim riley. Do let me know once you've resolved my comments. Thanks, sir.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these points, Ssven2. All attended to as outlined above. Tim riley talk 17:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you too for addressing them, Tim riley.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 17:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sacrilege! Blasphemy... um, Opprobrium?[edit]

You took out "sacrilege", and the text now blandly states that the early critics preferred "to accuse Offenbach of lampooning the classics" rather than French politics/society. What's wrong with lampooning something, especially something mythical or literary? Please explain why this "accusation" of lampooning classical characters could carry any sting or opprobrium? Also, when you refer to these critics, do you mean the theatrical reviewers, or someone else? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I liked the earlier wording, I admit, but I don't think it will do. The source's (Kracauer's) actual words are "instead of accusing Orpheus of sacrilege against contemporary society, he accused it of sacrilege against the gods." But the snag is that Kracauer was writing specifically about Janin, and I don't think other hostile critics in 1858 actually used the word sacrilège (and indeed even Janin did not apply the term to the work itself, though he called the women in the piece "sacrilegious" – "Ces femmes sacrilèges consomment ce crime impie..." lines 16 and 17 in the fifth column here). Other reviewers objected to the depiction of Jupiter and Pluto as "gloomy bourgeois men", and Orpheus and Eurydice as a mutually hostile married couple with adulterous ambitions, and so on: they saw it as unacceptable disrespect to Ovid's Metamorphoses, but I don't think I can justify saying that the hostile critics accused the piece of sacrilege. You ask, why the fuss about a lampoon? Well, a contemporary Briton or American would have smiled at how very seriously the French bourgeoisie took the classics (hence the repertoire at the Comédie-Française that so bored Offenbach) and lampoons like this – there had been earlier ones from time to time – caused the primmer type of critic to get very agitated. The sources don't entirely distinguish between the press reviewers and other dissenting voices. Tim riley talk 10:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've made changes to the text to clarify that they were accusing him of disrespect of the classics and classical figures, such as Ovid, through the parody. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Ss. I've developed the points you made. Tim riley talk 19:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good. It is all clear now to any reader, I think; indeed you might consider converting the second sentence ("...Janin shied away from confronting the political satire...") into a footnote. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, particularly as Kracauer may have had something of a sociological agenda, and not every subsequent writer has agreed with his analysis of Janin's motives. – Tim riley talk 07:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taruskin[edit]

  • It's all excellent. You cite "Faris comments that the satire perpetrated by Offenbach and his librettists was cheeky rather than hard-hitting." Taruskin in his 'Music of the 19th Century' (p. 646) goes further (and imo correctly) "The calculated licentiousness and feigned sacrilege, which successfully baited the stuffier critics, were recognized by all for what they were - a social palliative, the very opposite of social criticism.....The spectacle of the Olympian gods doing the cancan threatened nobody's dignity....that is hardly satire, as classically defined." Taruskin also notes, which might perhaps be worth mentioning in the music section, that the quick-polka cancan dance came originally to France from North Africa in in the 1830s.--Smerus (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Smerus. This is good stuff, which I shall certainly use. Hope you are pleased with your Handelian endeavours. Tim riley talk 12:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing PR[edit]

Thank you to all who have contributed to this PR. I am most grateful, and the article is much improved thanks to the comments on this page. Off to FAC now, where I hope to see some or all of you who have been kind enough to comment here. Tim riley talk 19:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Orpheus_in_the_Underworld/archive1&oldid=897415544"