Talk:W. S. Gilbert

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
A summary of this article appears in Gilbert and Sullivan.
Featured article star W. S. Gilbert is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 18, 2006.
This page has been selected for the release version of Wikipedia and rated FA-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Arts.
This article is part of WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan, an attempt to complete and improve the Gilbert and Sullivan related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale for the G&S Project.

Article Grading:
The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit)

Priority: "Top" for the G&S project, but I think "high" for biographies in general. Ssilvers

Biography criteria are unclear. If I read rightly, Top, but not "Core" for Biographies in general. Adam Cuerden talk 18:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
More information about this article...
 This article has had a peer review by the Biography WikiProject, which has now been archived.

Contents

[edit] Original comment

Hmm. It does strike me that this article concentrates a bit too much on Sullivan, and not enough about Gilbert. Might it not be better to cover, say, the German Reed operas, Engaged, Charity, Princess Toto, Mountebanks, and such instead of the long diversions into Sullivan's work?

Noticed that too. Will do what I can Adam Cuerden 03:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

....You know, I just checked. The Mountain sylph has practically NOTHING to do with Iolanthe except that both involve mortals marrying fairies. To claim that Gilbert parodied he plot of it in Iolanthe can only be an urban myth. I'm deleting the reference, and will put in a tracing of L'elisir through Sorcerer and Mountebanks instead. Adam Cuerden 04:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Potential duplication

There is quite a bit of duplication between this article and the Gilbert and Sullivan article. It would probably be appropriate if material related to the collaboration were on the latter page. This page would focus on Gilbert's background and accomplishments as an individual. Their collaboration would be described only briefly here, making reference to the 'G&S' article where the details would reside. Marc Shepherd 20:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It's probably worth briefly detailing Gildbert's most famous works, but, aye, some of it ought to go. Will try and push the biography forward through the Clay collaboration and important pre-Trial by Jury playts this weekend, and revise the Gilbert and Sullivan section after that, but...

Weel, if you can do anything, do so =) Adam Cuerden 08:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cut that needs restored

I have temporarily removed the following, for being inaccurate (Gilbert did not begin to have a directorial influence for some time after his marriage - he didn't have sufficient power), as well as not fitting in to the revised, expanded text I'm working on. (I have already removed some editorial bashing of Gilbert by the original author.)

The following year (1867), he married Lucy Agnes Turner. Following their marriage, he began to turn his attention more and more to writing for the stage and directing his work so that it would resemble his vision. Gilbert became a stickler that his actors interpret his work only in the manner he desired. This ran against the production style of the times, which was to let the actors have their way, the result of which had been a decline in the quality of English playwriting and dramatic production over the course of the late 18th century and the first half of the 19th century. By helping to reverse this trend, Gilbert not only improved the production of his own work; he also created an environment in which the work of later playwrights such as Oscar Wilde and George Bernard Shaw could be produced properly.

On the upside, starting to get a reasonable perspective on Gilbert's life and works. Downside: Have only revised up to 1869. Ah, well. It'll come in time Adam Cuerden 00:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the first part of the above paragraph but I got the material for the second part (starting from This ran against the production style of the time...) from a BBC radio biography of Gilbert which was broadcast a few years ago. It made the point about Shaw and Wilde that I included above. I'm sorry that my memory is not up to remembering the title of the program for citation purposes. Nevertheless I thought the information worth including because it demonstrates a lasting Gilbertian influence on theatre beyond the obvious. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The original quote was directionally accurate, but the timing wasn't right. Gilbert married Lucy Agnes Turner in 1867, but it was a couple of years before his "serious" plays started to appear in any quantity. As a director of his own productions, Gilbert was building on a trend that Tom Robertson had started. (Gilbert said he learned stage management from Robertson.)
Also, be a bit careful - the original version mentioned something about Other, more highly respected playwrights - then listed Oscar Wilde (whose most famous play was strongly inspired by one of Gilbert's), and George Bernard Shaw (who saw fit to praise some of Gilbert's plays, if not all). Came off very negative to Gilbert. Adam Cuerden 12:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
"I am the last person to insult a British playwright, Mr Cuerden". "You are the last person who did, Mr Ross", <grin>. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Heh! Adam Cuerden 17:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Query

Can anyone find Gilbert's famous quote about how he allowed himself to be underpaid for Dulcamara, and was told never to give up rights for something that good so cheaply again, and didn't? It'd make a very good reference for the controversy regarding Uncle Baby.

Also, I must admit to a little doubt: I'm reasonably sure it was Terrence Rees who brought Uncle Baby to wider knowledge, but I'm not certain. Anyone know for sure? Adam Cuerden 00:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden 00:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martyr of Antioch

I have briefly added a note about Gilbert's work on this, however, that really needs to become a paragraph in its own right, particularly as Sullivan's knighthood had more to do with the Savoy hotel than his musical work, so the bringing up of it is inappropriate anyway. I'm working on it. Adam Cuerden 01:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

I have used two quotes under fair use: One from Jessie Bond's autobiography, which is, as far as I can tell, in copyright, and one from Gilbert's story "My Maiden Brief" - out of copyright, but I took said quote from a modern collection. I can get it from a non-copyrighted version if this is needful, but it'd require going to the National Library of Scotland and getting appropriate photocopies. Must I? Adam Cuerden 17:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

This article will obviously need a fair bit of cleanup, however, the reworking is still in progress. Since no-one else seems to be working on this, I'll clean up once I'm done. Probably going to need to move the La Viviandre quotes to a seperate article. Burlesques by W.S. Gilbert?

[edit] Citations needed

The section on the collaboration with Sullivan says:

Gilbert and Sullivan had many rifts in their career, partly caused by the fact that each saw himself allowing his work to be subjugated to the other's, and partly caused by the gap in their social status.

I am not aware of any source that the gap in their social status was the cause (or even partly the cause) of their many rifts. Most of their rifts were very specifically caused by Sullivan's objections to Gilbert's libretto ideas. As soon as Gilbert came up with an idea to the composer's liking, the collaboration would resume. The "carpet quarrel," of course, was a fight over contractual issues.

The current edit also says:

Sullivan was at ease among the wealthy and titled people who would become his friends and patrons. Gilbert was a loner who did not choose to move in those social circles.

I am not aware of any source for the claim that Gilbert was a loner, or that he "did not choose" to socialize with "wealthy and titled" people. Gilbert, in fact, had a quite active social life. He was also married, and hence clearly not a "loner." He and Sullivan had different social spheres, but that could as well be described as a positive choice for certain companions, rather than a negative choice as implied by the statement.

Lastly, the current edit says:

Gilbert filled his plays with a strange mixture of cynicism about the world and "topsy-turvydom" in which the social order was turned upside down. The latter in particular, sometimes did not satisfy Sullivan's desire for realism (not to mention his vested interest in the status quo).

I am not aware of any source for the claim that Sullivan's "vested interest in the status quo" had anything to do with his objections to Gilbert's plots. What Sullivan did object to was the sometimes mechanical nature of Gilbert's librettos, particularly those that depended on supernatural intervention. Marc Shepherd 23:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree--all of these bothered me too. These statements are mostly made to contrast the author and composer. I think you should just take out the assertions that you don't think are supported and instead put in statements that are supported by the available research and makes a relevant contrast between the two men. I have tried to do the most obvious part of this, but Marc, I think you should go ahead and put in appropriate statements that you know are supported. In each of the three places, though, I think there is a point to be made hiding under the unsupported statements. --Ssilvers 00:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I usually put in a [citation needed] when I am pretty sure the statement is incorrect as it stands, but I don't have the time to put in a better-researched answer. Anyhow, I've simply deleted the statement about Sullivan's vested interest in the status quo. There is still one [citation needed], as it was harder to come up with a quick revision. Part of the problem is that the article, frankly, is not well organized. The paragraph, as now written, says this:
Gilbert and Sullivan had many rifts in their career, partly caused by the fact that each saw himself allowing his work to be subjugated to the other's, and partly caused by the two men's opposing personalities. Sullivan was eager to socialize among the wealthy and titled people who would become his friends and patrons. Gilbert was considered to have a prickly and sarcastic personality, and his often political satire was not always well-received in the circles of privilege.
The paragraph is about "rifts," and then it goes on primarily to talk about social lives. I think a more thoughtful rewrite would discuss their opposing personalities — and how this contrast both helped and hindered their collaboration.

[edit] Excessive Red-Linking?

Wikipedia's guideline on linking suggests what should not be linked:

Subsidiary topics that result in redlinks (links that go nowhere)...unless you're prepared to promptly turn those links into real ones yourself by writing the articles. It's usually better to resist linking these items until you get around to writing an article on each one. Marc Shepherd 17:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gilbert's Death

It says he was teaching two "young ladies" to swim. I have seen other sources that say "young girls" or "children". Were they adults or children? --Ssilvers 04:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time to look it up at the moment, but they were not children. Marc Shepherd 14:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed material

“ Sullivan, too, had a career of his own. Two ballets, a symphony, a cello concerto, and number of large-scale choral pieces, incidental music to five of Shakespeare's plays and, of course, other operatic works, including Ivanhoe, which opened Carte's new Royal English Opera House (now the Palace Theatre) in Cambridge Circus in 1891.

Sullivan was knighted in 1883, not long after the company moved to its new home, the Savoy Theatre. However this knighthood was not for his popular and financially rewarding work with Gilbert, but more for his contributions to musical education and his more 'serious' music. One such work was the musical drama The Martyr of Antioch, first produced late in 1881, for which Gilbert arranged the original epic poem into something suitable for music, and some of the song lyrics in that work are, in fact, Gilbert's original work. Gilbert was not knighted until 1907, in recognition of his contributions to drama. He was, however, the first British writer ever to receive a knighthood for his plays alone — earlier dramatist knights such as Sir William Davenant and Sir John Vanbrugh, were knighted for political and other services.

 ”

This meanders into Sullivan inappropriately.

I agree with the decision to remove this. Marc Shepherd 16:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
“ Gilbert filled his librettos with a strange mixture of cynicism about the world and "topsy-turvydom" in which the social order was turned upside down. These subjects sometimes did not satisfy Sullivan's desire for realism and emotional content. ”

This is perfectly acceptable, but misplaced.

I agree it is misplaced. It is not "perfectly acceptable," as it is a POV that should be sourced. Marc Shepherd 16:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Point. But, if sourced, acceptable enough, though a remnant of the previous somewhat anti-Gilbert version of the article. Adam Cuerden talk 17:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I should say, however, that I don't think chronology is working as an organiser. Going to shift this about into more coherent sections. Adam Cuerden talk 04:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To use

http://sitemaker.umich.edu/umgass/files/gasbag227.pdf - Wonderful research by Kevin Wachs, and some very quotable stuff. May be more relevant for The Pirates of Penzance? Adam Cuerden talk 04:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I see Adam took a shot at incorporating this material in the article. I removed it for a few reasons.
In the first place, it disrupts the balance of the article. Wachs is talking about two operas (both of which he admits are hypothetical) that never got produced. He isn't even certain how much of them (if anything) was actually written. A full paragraph on Wachs's research — when a decade of the G&S collaboration (Pirates to Gondoliers) is covered in a single sentence — can't be justified. If the Wachs theory deserves a paragraph, then The Mikado alone would deserve a whole section. At that point, the W. S. Gilbert article would become more like a book-length treatise.
Beyond that, as I mentioned in the Pirates talk page, Wachs's theory is merely one of several recent theories challenging the conventional wisdom of how the opera came about. None of them has yet been peer reviewed or accepted in the traditional published literature. The most it warrants in Wikipedia is a paragraph in the Pirates article – which is precisely what it has at the moment. Marc Shepherd 16:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review comments

I am deliberatly not commenting in the Peer Review section. As I understand it, this is reserved for people who haven't had a role in editing the article—editors who have no stake in the game.

Nevertheless, these are my views on what needs work in the article.

  1. There is a lack of balance in the article. A biography should highlight the subject's achievements in rough proportion to their importance. In the broad context of Gilbert's life, the early operatic parodies (Dulcamara, La Vivandière) are relatively unimportant. The space devoted to them is outsized in relation to their place in his career.

  2. There is a lack of citations. While I don't think every statement needs a specific cite, most statements in the article are uncited. It would be useful to focus on statements that clearly have a viewpoint, e.g., that "The plot [of Ages Ago] is typically Gilbertian." While I don't disagree with this statement, who said it? Of course, another problem with the statement is that "Gilbertian" hasn't yet been defined.

  3. The article doesn't really explain Gilbert's importance, his contributions to art, his strengths, and his limitations. This is the kind of material that can only be added properly if it is cited. I would humbly suggest that the long section in the Sullivan article on "Reputation and Criticism" is an example of how this could be done. (Not the only way, of course.)

  4. The article should have more about the person, rather than being a mere chronology of his professional career. For instance, there is no mention of his propensity to sue people, or of the Henrietta Hodson debacle.

  5. The article should be better illustrated.

  6. I suspect that after all of this is done, the tabular list of plays will be hived off into another article.

As a general matter, we must carefully avoid what some editors call the "main article syndrome" — the urge to drop one's favorite factoids into the main article, rather than focusing on main themes. Sideline facts usually belong in subsidiary articles. The purpose of the main article is to provide an overview of the overall subject. Marc Shepherd 16:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Aye, I suspect much of Gilbert's early works will need to be trimmed out into their own article. However, I'd suggest that this is a late-stage revision, and best done after a reasonably comprehensive article comes out. G&S operas are, indeed, woefully inadequate - it's pretty obvious where I stopped my extensive revision a few months ago and we end up left with what was there before. Hopefully, this will be fixed soon. That said, since there is a specific article on Gilbert and Sullivan, we can afford to treat it more lightly and provide a link. Not this lightly, though! Adam Cuerden talk 17:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Addendum. There are quite a few biography articles that have attained GA, A, or FA-Class. By looking at those, one can get a pretty good idea of what the next level up looks like. Marc Shepherd 19:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Ages Ago. Now to trim what's in this article down to size! Adam Cuerden talk 23:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The List

Instead of the big grey box, what if we revised it into a ist with a short description of each piece? Would that be useful? Of course, it'd probably need spun off to another article. Adam Cuerden talk 23:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the list probably belongs in a separate article, no matter what is done with it. One must be careful with the descriptions, as the debate over List of major opera composers has shown. Marc Shepherd 00:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but it's not that hard to provide a short plot synopsis or referenced note. Adam Cuerden talk 00:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I vote we leave the box alone for now. --Ssilvers 18:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed

Cut much of the material moved to Ages Ago as well as the following:

SERGEANT SULPIZIO:

Come, stop these starts,
Your case is not uncommon in these parts!
Long years ago upon a battle plain,
The Captain of my company was slain,
But ere he died, he handed to my care
A pretty baby beautifully fair,
In this silk handkerchief the captain wropped it,
[producing handkerchief]
But 'ere I could adopt it, he had hopped it!
The baby grew up exquisite indeed,
Now she's the fairest flower you ever seed.

MARIA:

(innocently) The fairest flower? Whoever can that be?
(suddenly) Why that describes me, father, to a T.

It seemed necessary. Everything needs cited, but it shouldn't be hard to go back and do that hwhen at Uni. Adam Cuerden talk 21:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Adam. I think the deletions are good. I went through and copy-edited what you did, and I thought your new stuff was good, except that I don't understand this sentence:
"...These works would bring in such elements as Melodrama brought to life - with none of the characters actually anything like the role cast in." What does it mean? -- Ssilvers 22:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

...Er, oops. That should read "the characters from a melodrama brought to life." Adam Cuerden talk 10:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Revised things a bit. Moved Engaged into proper chronological place, etc. Really needs expansion of the Gilbert and Sullivan years from H.M.S. Pinafore on, the Carpet Quarrel, the interregnum, Utopia and Grand Duke, and later life. Also needs more information on him as a person and a vast expansion of his directoral influence. But at least it's a start. Adam Cuerden talk 11:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed

"I hold that there is no such antick fellow as your bombastical hero who doth so earnestly spout forth his folly as to make his hearers believe that he in unconscious of all incongruity; whereas, he who doth so mark, label, and underscore his antick speeches as to show that he is alive to their absurdity seemeth to utter them under protest, and to take part with his audience against himself.
- Hamlet's speech to the players in Gilbert's burlesque Rosencratz and Guildenstern

Good quote, but too short of a section to use it at present. HAve added it as a cite. Adam Cuerden talk 16:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

I propose to add the Fallen Fairies affair next: Adam Cuerden talk 18:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Nancy MacKintosh is more important: Should do her in a block, starting at Utopia Limited. Adam Cuerden talk 18:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Right. I think the Fallen Fairies stuff goes in the Fallen Fairies article. It should not clutter up the W. S. Gilbert article. --Ssilvers 03:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be useful in the W.S.Gilbert article as an example of Gilbert's legislation. Adam Cuerden talk 04:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Troublesome phrasing

When Who's Who was revised to include biographical details, Gilbert refused to co-operate until the editors sent him the proof of an entry they proposed to run unless he sent back a corrected version. Their draft referred to him as "librettist for the operas of Sir Arthur Sullivan" and resulted in Gilbert sending his correct details back.

This seems to be trying to say something, but I honestly don't know what. Adam Cuerden talk 16:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Gilbert preferred to be called a "dramatist" rather than a librettist, which he regarded as the secondary partner in an opera. Also, I believe, that once he saw the various errors that Who's Who was going to make in his bio, he couldn't resist correcting them. -- Ssilvers 17:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense, but since that fact isn't ever established, it's hard to follow the logic as written Adam Cuerden talk 18:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redlinks

Note that I have redlinked, in the article, the Gilbert plays that I think we need to write up next. Regards, -- Ssilvers 23:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I've ref-tagged some of the in-line references, but note we now have a mix of two sorts of references (web-links and footnotes), which is bad because of two different numbering schemes. I don't think this worth fixing until we have the article ready for GA review: It will only need to be fixed over and over. Adam Cuerden talk 18:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Ssilvers 18:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Memo

Fix The Importance of Being Earnest article to link to Engaged (play) Adam Cuerden talk 18:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm done

I think I've now done all the work on the article that I wish to do. I'll look over anything else that you do, but I think it contains all the basic info I would put in. I still think it could be expanded (or a section consolidated) on what W.S.G. was like as a person and his home life (including his relationship with women in general and something very brief on Nancy). I have a little of this near the end. I also moved the "director" stuff up higher, because he started directing before, or in, 1871, and because it explains something about his process that is helpful in understanding the discussion of the collaboration years -- Ssilvers 04:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of W. S. Gilbert dramatic works

I made a separate article called List of W. S. Gilbert dramatic works. -- Ssilvers 20:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Images

Is the Utopia poster really appropriate, or should it be lost, in favour of, say, Gilbert's illustration of Put a Penny in the Slot? Adam Cuerden talk 17:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the Utopia poster. *shrug*. -- Ssilvers 20:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I do too, but wonder if coming mid-way through the section by necessity makes for awkward layout. Adam Cuerden talk 20:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why. Looks fine to me. Anyone else have an opinion? -- Ssilvers 20:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Assessment

Thanks for all the great work on the article, guys. I upgraded it to "A", because I think it's reasonably complete and has a good bibliography. However, unless you want to go through and add a lot of page numbers, I don't think it will get GA or FA from the wikipedians, because it does not have enough in-line references. However, I don't care about that. It is a nice, informative article, and I am frankly happy with it (except that we need to add more of G's most notable plays, as soon as we can get articles up). -- Ssilvers 20:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Think we have enough on his personality? Could add that NAncy MacKintosh section to try and give a sample of his litigeous side coupled with his loyalty. Adam Cuerden talk 21:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
If you have something encyclopedic to write, go ahead and write it. That's the beauty of Wikipedia, right? One can keep improving articles forever. The only thing I would suggest is that you try to keep it reasonably brief so that it does not unbalance the article, and the most notable things about the subject are given the most weight in the overall discussion. Regards, -- Ssilvers 21:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


The Wolfson reference is pretty much passim, or, at least, big chunks. He keeps making unfavourable comparisons, particularly to His Excellency. Call it 11, 12, 14,61 and 65, if we must be definate - he mainly concentrates on His Excellency for praise, coming between the two main subjects in question. 64-65 is the biggest section.Adam Cuerden talk 21:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hmm

Arthur William à Beckett - Now this is interesting. Adam Cuerden talk 21:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, although Gilbert Arthur à Beckett is actually more relevant. -- Ssilvers 21:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, but the childhood friendship angle would be useful insofar as it shows further humanity of Gilbert. Adam Cuerden talk 22:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Play list

Should we add Pygmalion and Galatea (1871) to the list of plays? It's reasonably important, it has an article, but is it sufficiently notable? Adam Cuerden talk 10:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Yes it is! Adam Cuerden talk 10:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

This article will be put on hold (for 7 days) until these minor adjustments can be made :

1. Well written? Pass on hold
2. Factually accurate? Pass
3. Broad in coverage? Pass
4. Neutral point of view? Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images? Pass on hold


Additional comments :

  • Image:Ws gilbert cartoon.png is not well tagged, tag is now obsolete.
  • Sentence like However, no one took Thespis as the beginning of a great collaboration, contain weasel words that should be easy to remove and render a less idealistic view of Gilbert.

Even though the article normally would pass, it will be on hold in order to remove some of the weasel words present throughout the text and to appropriately tag pictures. Lincher 19:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Removed Section

Moved some of The Palace of Truth's observations to a sub-article. It was bogging down in details, but no description of the play. Adam Cuerden talk 22:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Possible error

Jones, John Bush, "W.S. Gilbert's Contributions to Fun, 1865-1874" by John Bush Jones, published in the Bulletin of the New York Public Library, vol 73 (April 1969), pp253-266 - I am 99.9% sure this reference deals in full with Gilbert's leaving Fun, but as I do not currently have the article at hand, I am marking it here, just in case it was a different source that I'm mixing up. That said, this is exceedingly unlikely, as I used this source nearly every day for a month or so last year. Adam Cuerden talk 22:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Perfectly fine, though it's worth mentioning that there's a three year gap between his 1871 contributions and his last few 1874 ones. Adam Cuerden talk 15:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA passed

All the requested comments which were little were applied on the article. Wow, this is a throughout great copy-editor. Thanks for being such a fast-paced, well-versed writer. Cheers, Lincher 01:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bibliography

I've spun Off the Bibliographic section - I've linked to it, not the full list, as I think it's somewhat easier to use, since it has commentary. Adam Cuerden talk 09:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

However, I don't agree that the commentary is accurate or helpful. I'm afraid that I disagree with much of what you did over the weekend, but I just don't have time to keep up with what you are doing. For instance, the quote that you put in the beginning of the article is misplaced. It refers to the fairy comedies, not the "early" works. I'm considering withdrawing from the project. -- Ssilvers 13:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
If you look, it refers back to him as a writer of burlesques. I was asked to demonstrate that comments were relevant, and by showing that others thought that the burlesque influenced Gilbert's later satire, it proves that discussing his satire in the burlesques is relevant. As for the Bibliography, it was done by me and AlbertHerring - feel free to change anything you disagree with, if you can do it better. Adam Cuerden talk 15:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

But its wrong! It is not referring to his burlesques at all, but to his fairy comedies, and comparing them to burlesque. I think this is misleading. See my change. -- Ssilvers 16:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Your change, in my opinion, works very well - it's what I had intended to imply, though perhaps not what I had said. As for the Bibliography - I'm not sure what to do. I'd like to have a page that encourages the reader to click on links, not that provides a dry list of titles and dates and locations of performances. However, I may be going about this the wrong way - any ideas? Adam Cuerden talk 17:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it does need to be a little drier. First of all, it needs to say "Selected bibliography...." Second, we can say what the piece concerns, and how the work fits into the context of Gilbert's career. But I think you ought to be rather spare in characterizing each piece, for instance in what the satire means. Let the link speak for itself. Ssilvers

[edit] Citing

I love to be a pain. Here we go. This is ultra-fussy.

[edit] Lead

  • Gilbert was a librettist - a librettist for what, exactly? Opera? Ballet? Operetta? Zarzuela? Please clarify.
Librettist, by definition, only applies to musical theatre with lyrics- in other words, Operas, operettas, musical comedies, and burlesques, all of which (well, arguably not musical comedies, though Grand Duke is sometimes considered to be an attempt at one), he wrote.

IT SAYS: "...librettist best known for his fourteen operatic collaborations...." This is exactly accurate in describing the subject of this article. -- Ssilvers 21:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Have included another article as a cite that agrees on just librettist. Adam Cuerden talk 12:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "Lines from these operas have permanently entered the English language; among the most well-known are "short, sharp shock", "What, never? Well, hardly ever!" and "let the punishment fit the crime". Really? POV without a cite.
  • "inspired one of Oscar Wilde's most popular plays, The Importance of Being Earnest." I suppose a cite isn't strictly speaking necessary, but I'd like one anyway.

[edit] The Rest

  • "Gilbert's parents were distant and stern, and he did not have a particularly close relationship with either of them." Cite, please. Gilbert's parents might disagree, after all.
  • "he later kept his diary in French so that the servants could not read it" - I think this is pretty redundant anyway, but if this is going to be kept, then cite, please. How do you know it wasn't his wife he didn't want to understand the diary?
  • "The poems, illustrated humourously by Gilbert, proved immensely popular and were reprinted in book form as the Bab Ballads." "Immensely popular" could do with a cite.
I presume that Gilbert saying they were won't count? I have a copy of the sixth edition of the fourth or fifth variant collection of them where he talks about the history. Adam Cuerden talk 21:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Cited, but I should check the publication year when I get home. Adam Cuerden talk 08:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "Beginning about 1869, Gilbert's plays would change in character, departing even further from the burlesque style, to contain original plots and fewer puns." Cite.
  • "whose Gallery of Illustration sought to regain some of theatre's lost respectability by offering family entertainments in London." I don't know for cert that that's what the theatre was really after without a cite.
  • "The environment of the German Reeds' intimate theatre allowed Gilbert quickly to develop a personal style and freedom to control all aspects of production, including set, costumes, direction and stage management." Another one that strictly speaking requires a cite. "These works were a success" from the next sentence needs IMO a cite as well. Moreschi 19:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind if I mark this up as I fix it. - it makes it much easier to see what still needs done. Adam Cuerden talk 19:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More

Whoops, I just pressed "Enter" by mistake. Here are a few more.

  • "They established that his capabilities extended far beyond burlesque, won him artistic credentials, and demonstrated that he was a writer of wide range, as comfortable with human drama as with farcical humour." POV without a cite, as is the bit about "greatest success to date in the previous sentence. - Gayden Wren Adam Cuerden talk 12:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "Though dated, these works demonstrate Gilbert's desire to give respectable and well-educated theatre audiences comedies that were more refined and tasteful than the usual farces and burlesques playing in London. On the other hand, during the same period, Gilbert pushed the boundaries of how far satire could go in the theatre." Major POV without a cite.
  • "he sought realism in acting, if not in content of his plays, shunned interaction with the audience, and insisted on a standard of characterisation where the characters were never aware of their own absurdity, but were coherent internal wholes". Did he now. Cite.
The Preface to Engaged and the passage from Rosencratz and Guildenstern don't count? Ah, well. I happen to have a cite anyway. Adam Cuerden talk 20:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

*"With his work along these lines, Gilbert set the ground for later playwrights such as George Bernard Shaw and Oscar Wilde to be able to flourish on the English stage." Ho hum. Assertion without a cite.

  • "Gilbert was famous for demonstrating the action himself, even as he grew older." Cite.
Note: A Stage Play certainly demonstrates Gilbert DID demonstrate it. It's the famous part that's awkward. Adam Cuerden talk 13:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Weakly cited. Adam Cuerden talk 20:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "Sullivan was enthusiastic, and Trial by Jury was composed in a matter of weeks. The little piece was a runaway hit, outlasting the run of La Périchole and being revived at another theatre." Sullivan's enthusiasm needs citing, as does the "runaway success" of the work".
  • "Gilbert continued his quest to gain respect in and respectability for his profession. One thing that he felt held dramatists back from respectability was that plays were not published in a form suitable for a "gentleman's library", as, at the time, they were generally cheaply and unattractively published for the use of actors rather than the home reader." Unverified assertions about Gilbert's thoughts. Cite.
  • "Engaged is a parody of romantic drama written in the "topsy-turvy" satiric style of many of Gilbert's Bab Ballads and the Savoy Operas, with one character pledging his love, in the most poetic and romantic language possible, to every single woman in the play; the "innocent" Scottish rustics being revealed to be making a living through throwing trains off the lines and then charging the passengers for services, and, in general, romance being gladly thrown over in favour of monetary gain. Engaged continues to be performed today by both professional and amateur companies." An awful lot of this needs citing.
I think I've managed to demonstrate the case. Adam Cuerden talk 20:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

O.K, that's enough for just now, more later. Mess around with this all you like, Adam. You might like to strike each complaint as you provide a cite. Cheers, Moreschi 20:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Helpful hint to future citers: I've gone through Crowther's Life of W.S. Gilbert and cited everything I could use it for - an article by a respected, published scholar available online is useful. I think the Gayden Wren one has a few more. I'll do that next.

1. I would minimize Gayde Wren if you can, because he is definitely NOT a respected author.
2. I corrected the "What never?" quote. We do not need to misquote it, just because a source misquotes it. -- Ssilvers 21:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry - I had briefly considered deleting it - it's certainly famous and extremely well known, but I wasn't sure if it had "entered into the language" as such, since it seems to always be used to evoke Pinafore, and then, rapidly thinking better of it, restored from the cite, being a bit too sleepy to notice the error. Which is a good arguement for sleep, now.
Can you get the first two cites under "rest"? My sources are light on the childhood front, since my specialty is his works. Adam Cuerden talk 22:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The first one is Crowther. The second is Stedman 1996, but I don't have the page #. -- Ssilvers 01:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Which Crowther? There's about 6 of his works used. Adam Cuerden talk 06:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The one you call "CrowtherLife". ALSO: the WP MOS does not require a reference in the first sentence to prove that Gilbert is a librettist. The entire article makes it abundantly clear that he is a librettist. Clicking on this reference will not add to anyone's understanding of the article. I am removing the ref, but adding it to External links. --Ssilvers 14:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother. It's not very good. Adam Cuerden talk 14:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


CITATION PROCESS FINISHED (for now) Adam Cuerden talk 18 Oct, 2006

[edit] Jessie Bond refs

Sometimes you have < ref name=JessieBond >, but sometimes you have a different kind of reference to Bond's book. Since you are trying to standardise the refs, you ought to search for bond throughout the code and make the all the same. I note that you are referring to the online version of her memoirs, and we also have them in the References section in book form. Is all this according to the MOS? I am just pointing this out to you. Personally, I don't care much about the ref format. -- Ssilvers 14:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That's because sometimes I refer to her and someone else, or want to direct to a different chapter than the main reference. ref name=JessieBond is for the introduction - referencing Chapter 6, say, needs a different reference. It also looks ugly if you have something like [5][11][12][13], so multiple citations are combined into one footnote.. Adam Cuerden talk 15:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yet more

As some day it may happen that the bronze star must be found

I've got a little list, I've got a little list

Of unreferencèd statements that might well be underground

And that never would be missed...

Another list of stuff-to-cite. Don't rejoice yet Adam, I told you there was more on the way. Right, here we go...

  • "This work was a modest success" - I'd kind of like a cite. Modest is rather a subjective word.
  • "Pinafore became a red-hot favourite by autumn". Red-hot is subjective also.
  • "Gilbert sometimes had a strained working relationship with Sullivan, partly caused by the fact that each man saw himself allowing his work to be subjugated to the other's, and partly caused by the opposing personalities of the two—Gilbert was often confrontational and notoriously thin-skinned (though prone to acts of extraordinary kindness), while Sullivan eschewed conflict. In addition, Gilbert imbued his libretti with "topsy-turvy" situations in which the social order was turned upside down. After a time, these subjects were often at odds with Sullivan's desire for realism and emotional content. In addition, Gilbert's political satire often poked fun at those in the circles of privilege, while Sullivan was eager to socialize among the wealthy and titled people who would become his friends and patrons." All big, bad, ugly POV without a cite - probably several.
Jessie Bond, CrowtherLife.
And Jacobs. Ssilvers 18:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Did I cite the right Jacobs? Adam Cuerden talk 22:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "saying that he found Gilbert's plots repetitive and that the operas were not artistically satisfying to him" - not strictly necessary, but there's something about this that I don't like. Cite.
Jessie Bond, I think.
I would not cite Bond. This is something Sullivan said over and over again in letters, his diary and a variety of similar ways and must be quoted in dozens or hundreds of sources. Ssilvers 18:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Fair point. Adam Cuerden talk 21:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Ainger is surely entirely praiseworthy? -Adam Cuerden, on an unfamilar keyboard without a tilde he can spot.
  • "The Hooligan was Gilbert's most successful serious drama": POV, and not covered by the cite at the end of the paragraph. Crowther says "one of", not "most".
  • "Gilbert has been accused of being prickly and hard to get along with". Cite, please.
Jessie Bond again: She has a very good cite for that.
I don't think you need to cite a source to prove that Gilbert was accused of being prickly: You cannot avoid this statement in most sources on Gilbert. You can cite the Hicks article on Marc's discography if you must. Ssilvers 18:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
You're right. Adam Cuerden talk 21:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Eh, I particularly like Jessie Bond's quote, and they're cited two lines later. No harm done by the extra quote. Adam Cuerden talk 22:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


Will cite this up later. Adam Cuerden talk 16:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Huge congratulations to both Adam Cuerden and Ssilvers for their work on this Gesamtkunstwerk. Impressive stuff. Moreschi 16:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This was Adam's project, and he did all the citation work. I just add content. Lord, keep me safe from any more citation projects! -- Ssilvers 18:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I know I'm a being a complete bastard with these references, but come bronze star and it'll be worth it. It could be worse. I'm not qualified to put this article through the full User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a prose tests wringer. I was going to ask Peirigill to help out, but he's on holiday. The prose looks pretty good anyway, though, and I'll try to remove any obvious redundancies myself. Congrats again! Best, Moreschi 19:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's my problem: We are looking up the easisest-to-access sources, not necessarily the best researched, most authoritative ones. The best ones are listed in the Reference list below. So, in fact, this exercise is simply making sure that the online sources get more play than the serious scholarship. That's a shame. Also, if an editor previously wrote something good from a good source, but s/he is not here now to defend that prose, it is getting changed to say something closer to what some online source says, because that is what is easy for Adam to look up. So, even though Crowther's little bio of Gilbert is a very good little bio, ultimately, adding a bunch of refs to Jessie Bond's memoir and Crowther's little bio (instead of his excellent book) is not really helping the reader. Readers who want to know more than what we are telling them in this article should read Stedman's and Crowthers' and a few other excellent books. -- Ssilvers 19:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

With few exceptions which, I hope, were for the better, I don't think I've changed any text. Also, in a few cases where phrasing and structure was similar, I can definitively place some text.
I suggest a compromise: Use the most valid of the internet sources for now - Crowther, Gilbert, etc, and I promise to go through it and add more Steadman and Crowther published sources later, once my student loans arrive and I can get 'em delivered. Adam Cuerden talk 19:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I do think you have done good work here, but I wish Marc were here to review what we are doing. -- Ssilvers 20:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That cite looks good, but the formatting is messed up. It needs fixing. Moreschi 20:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Which cite? Adam Cuerden talk 22:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

So that's where the kidnapping story comes from (5th paragraph from the end)

Gilbert told the kidnapping story more than once, but Stedman and the other scholars who have investigated it think it is just a family "old wive's tale". I don't think it should be in the encyclopedia. -- Ssilvers 21:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Aye, this was just for private reading. Adam Cuerden talk 22:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I think Terriss also commented on Gilbert's demonstrations of staging and choreography, and she was rather complimentary about it? See the external link. -- Ssilvers 21:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
So he did. Added it. Adam Cuerden talk 22:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

Petaholmes edit shows it: The lead for this article cxould use a little more work: The first sentence doesn't flow into what follows. Any ideas as to what should be added, or do you think a rewrite will do? Adam Cuerden talk 23:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's bad. Compare the intros to Ira Gershwin, Oscar Wilde or Oscar Hammerstein II. It's a lot better than all of those. The only thing I don't like about it is the reference to Oscar Wilde, which I think can wait for later in the article. If I were to tweak it, I would tweak it to flow like this: First sentence. His most popular comic operas, including Mik, Pin and Pir., as well as most of the other Savoy Operas are still frequently performed. He also wrote the Bab Ballads and Engaged, among his other 75 or so plays. I think we could move the sentence about Mikado further down. -- Ssilvers 03:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense - moving from the most general to specifics is logical and flows well, and likely fixes all problems. Adam Cuerden talk 07:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I took a crack at the intro. -- Ssilvers 15:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I like your new version. And the moving of the Engaged bit reminded me, so I slipped over to The Importance of Being Earnest and added in the Engaged link whilst I was at it. Adam Cuerden talk 15:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Point of Fact

"During this time, Gilbert and Sullivan also collaborated on one other work, the oratorio The Martyr of Antioch, first produced late in 1881."

What about the parlour ballads (Distant Shore, the Love that Loves me Not, Sweethearts)? Need we mention them, or clarify with "one other major work" or something? Adam Cuerden talk 15:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"Major" is fine. Done. -- Ssilvers 15:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Query

Gilbert moved to Grim's Dyke in 1890 and, in 1893 was named a Justice of the Peace in Harrow Weald. When Who's Who was revised to include biographical details, Gilbert refused to co-operate with the publication. The editors sent him the proof of an entry they proposed to run unless he sent back a corrected version. Their draft referred to him as merely "librettist for the operas of Sir Arthur Sullivan", which resulted in Gilbert sending back his version of the entry

This is Stedman, isn't it? Last significant uncited fact. Adam Cuerden talk 14:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


Justice of the Peace. In addition to lots of others, see: http://www.lyricoperasandiego.com/Education/PeopleGilbert.htm As to Who's Who, I don't remember where I saw it, and a quick search did not turn it up. It might be Steadman, but I'm not sure. Cut it if you like, although it would be a shame to cut interesting stuff that makes the article better. -- Ssilvers 15:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No need to cut unless it actually can't be backed up. I haven't actually checked Stedman and Ainger yet, nor Crowther. Adam Cuerden talk 18:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Temporarily removed text

When Who's Who was revised to include biographical details, Gilbert refused to co-operate with the publication. The editors sent him the proof of an entry they proposed to run unless he sent back a corrected version. Their draft referred to him as merely "librettist for the operas of Sir Arthur Sullivan", which resulted in Gilbert sending back his version of the entry.

Figured that we might as well get FA whilst we're waiting for it to be checked, so a temporary move seemed pragmatic. Anyway, it was somewhat awkwardly placed. Adam Cuerden talk 01:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Pinner vs. Harrow Weald

They seem to be subdivisions of the same place, but Hicks and Terriss say Magistrate at Pinner (Might well be both, or the boundaries may have shifted, etc), but, anyway, I've changed it to Pinner, unless you think it's wrong Adam Cuerden talk 12:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

(I haven't been able to find a mention of his career as a judge in Stedman, by the by, though I may just be missng it: I haven't read the book straight through yet) Adam Cuerden talk 14:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Try page 281. See [1] She also refers to him as a magistrate, e.g. when discussing "Charity".[2]. CrowtherLife says "In 1893 he had been appointed a local JP, and this occupied part of his time for the rest of his life...." -- Ssilvers 16:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

...Ah, drat. She says Middlesex. Which certainly contains Pinner and Harrow Weald, but... Adam Cuerden talk 19:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

We could say "in Middlesex". "In Middlesex" is correct, and it avoids the unimportant point of whether his jurisdiction covered all of Middlesex or just a part of it, and exactly where in Middlesex he "sat" on the bench. If you agree, please go ahead and make the change. -- Ssilvers 21:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Weel, Stedman isn't inconsistant with Hicks, and Grim's Dyke is quite close to Pinner. I'm going into the NLS tomorrow. I'll have a glance at Ainger and, possibly, Jacobs. Should see consensus fairly quickly. They don't have Crowther, though.
P.S. Is it just me or is Stedman's main weakness, besides the printing errors that cut large chunks out of the Hooligan section, the lack of a good index? Her orginisation is somewhat awkward, and without a good index to correct this, it becomes more so, which is a pity as her research is truly impressive, and her writing style engaging. Adam Cuerden talk 23:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll e-mail Crowther. Stedman's index certainly leaves something to be desired. -- Ssilvers 01:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Arr, ask him if he knows about the Who's Who whilst you're at it: Might save a lot of work. Adam Cuerden talk 02:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)°
Right. Fixed as per Stedman. I do wonder, though, if it'd be better for the paragraph to come earlier - it's backtracking a bit. On the othe hand, it flows better this way. What d'ye think?

I think it's good now. -- Ssilvers 17:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Biography/Selected_article/Candidates#.5B.5BW._S._Gilbert.5D.5D

Thought I'd engage in a little promotion of the article... Adam Cuerden talk 17:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed alteration

In 1859, a perceived French threat caused the creation of a volunteer force to protect the home front, and Gilbert signed up. He continued with them until 1878, reaching the rank of Captain.[1] In 1863, he received a bequest of £300 that he used to quit the civil service and take up a brief career as a barrister, but he was not successful, averaging just five clients a year. [2]

To

In 1859, a perceived French threat caused the creation of a volunteer force to protect the home front, and Gilbert signed up. He would continue with them until 1878, and reach the rank of Captain.[3] Meanwhile, in 1863, he received a bequest of £300 that he used to quit the civil service and take up a brief career as a barrister, but he was not successful, averaging just five clients a year. [4]

Reasoning: This passage jumps arouund time-wise a little bit, so uuse of appropriate tenses may help clarify. Adam Cuerden talk 19:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the stuff about the volunteers is too long and has nothing to do with why G. is famous, so I wish you would shorten it to somehting like:

In 1859, Gilbert signed up for the volunteers later reaching the rank of Captain.[5] In 1863,.... -- Ssilvers 01:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"Volunteers" isn't used much in modern parlance, though, (modern is Territorial Army, which stedman explains is the merger of the volunteers and the Territorials). I'm not sure we should let it past without explanation, as it would be awful hard for someone who didn't know what it means to figure it out. Adam Cuerden talk 01:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The plain meaning of the word volunteers is clear enough. I think you are missing the forest here to focus on this unimportant tree. I think the balance of the article would be much improved by shortening this -- 02:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

How's my version look? Adam Cuerden talk 15:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me now. -- Ssilvers 19:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article

This article is scheduled to appear on the main page in the near future. Here are a few suggestions:

  • One of the goals of the Main Page is to attact new editors who will contibute usefully to the article. This can work if you let it, but it can also be frustrating for an article in which you have an intellectual investment.
  • This page is going to get edited heavily. My experience is that about half the edits will be vandalism, half will be reverts and there will be a few good edits.
  • Someone is going to think of asking that the page be protected. Please see the policy Wikipedia:Don't protect Main Page featured articles to understand why this is probably will not happen, and if it does it will be for a short time.
  • I recommend that the maintaining editors hold tight and let the process work. Don't drive yourself crazy by trying to make all the reverts. There are lots of other editors who will see the problems and make those fixes.
  • If you are an editor who is attracted to this article and see where some changes should be made, you might want to hold off until the article comes off the main page. There is going to be a lot of noise and useful edits may get lost.
  • Drive a stake: Figure out which version of the article was stable before it went on the main page. After it comes off, do a diff and use this for cleanup.

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 18:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Got it! So, basically, expect some vandals, some people who'll show up once, but have good things to say, and some people who'll be assets to G&S-related projects for years to come? Adam Cuerden talk 18:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Eh, I'd expect a bit more than "some" vandalism. Concerto delle donne got a hell of a lot. Moreschi 19:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America) got 294 edits while it was featured. I figure we got about two good sentences out of it. After it was over, I added a paragraph based on some of the the eidts. I think we got 2 or 3 new editors out of it. I'm not trying to be patronizing here, just relating experiences. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah... Right... *slightly nervous now* Adam Cuerden talk 19:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't be. Just be realistic. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Remember, AntiVandalBot is now your new best friend. And there are plenty of admins on patrol, and I - and, I'm sure, everyone else who worked on this article - will keep an eye out. Help is at hand. In fact, occasionally at Concerto I couldn't get a revert in edgeways. Moreschi 20:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Right-o, then. Let's see how this works out! Adam Cuerden talk 20:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I wrote a little monograph: User:Gadget850/MainPage. I guess it's my way of venting a bit from the other day. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your commentary Gadget850. I agree we will see some vandalism when this goes on the front page of Wikipedia. That always happens but we have a lot of good administrators and bots to help us patrol these things, there shouldn't be any need to protect the article now that we have a policy in place to explain the dos and donts. Marty Capin 23:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
The vandalism is no big deal. We'll handle it as we always do. What is a big deal is the amount of work that Sam and Adam have put into improving this article. It's a month or two since I last read it and the improvement in content, citation and general style is not just noticeable -- it's enormous. I am really impressed. Well done, guys. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for the new edits. We're hoping that getting this article featured will attract some more interest in WP:G&S and get some more editors working on the G&S-related articles. Best regards! -- Ssilvers 19:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FA Post-mortem

I have reviewed the changes made over the course of the FA frenzy of 17-19 November, and I agree that a few minor improvements have been made, although I think there is a bit of over-linking (e.g., does the pound sign really need to be wikified? or the word "English" in the phrase "English-speaking"?). I assume that the changes made from "this notation" to 'this notation' are a correct reflection of formal British style. Thanks to those who monitored vandalism during this exercise. Did we meet any new editors for the G&S project? Anyone who is interested, please check out WP:G&S. Added by Ssilvers

Agreed about the over-linking, but, eh, let it stand. Doesn't hurt. Actually, I'm rather surprised at how little, on the whole, actually changed: I think it's a sign we did well beforehand. I've just gone through and did my own review; a few minor rephrasings of bits that were never all that well-phrased, but which the edits hadn't fixed enough, e.g. "His father, also named William, was a naval surgeon who later became a novelist and short story writer, and some of his books were illustrated by his son." reads better, IMO, as "His father, also named William, was a naval surgeon who later became a writer of novels and short stories, some of which were illustrated by his son."

Check my revision of the Realm of Joy bit, though. Because there's only so much that Gilbert can tweak the Lord Chamberlain's nose and get away with it, it's claimed their motives towards the other man's wife were compassionate, having found her in tears over her husband's refusal to let her go to the play, though Crowther reads sex it into it - There might be an interesting point there. Adam Cuerden talk 02:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure the sneaking of the other one's wife is "pushing the boundary", is it? I'm not sure that needs to be mentioned. It may be that the point is made by just saying that the piece sasses the Lord Chamberlain, and leaving out the stuff about the wives. -- Ssilvers 02:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
True. They do make up a large part of the plot, but not a majority of it - maybe... oh... a third, with well over half of it devoted to the Chamberlain and societal satire, of which they also play a part. Have you read it? It's quite good, but very loosely plotted, so we needn't worry too much about leaving out one of the many minor plot threads. Adam Cuerden talk 04:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Approved version

Are we happy enough with the post-front page version now to update the approved version? I'm inclined to aye. Adam Cuerden talk 15:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, fine by me. -- Ssilvers 18:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/2E/_/Talk%7EW._S._Gilbert_1109.html"