Talk:Cultural influence of Gilbert and Sullivan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan, organized to complete and improve the Gilbert and Sullivan related articles on Wikipedia. You can participate by editing the article attached to this page or by visiting the project page, to join the project and see a list of open tasks. |  |
|
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale for the G&S Project. | ||
|
You may comment here on the rating or to explain the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
|||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Popular Culture, a WikiProject which aims to improve all articles related to popular culture. |
|
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| High | This article is on a subject of high-importance within popular culture articles. | |
|
This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
||
[edit] Good article candidate?
Not even close, IMO. Its current B-class rating seems over-stated. Marc Shepherd 20:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, come on: Sam's done an excellent job pulling together disparate information into a fair and reasonably balanced view of their significance in popular culture. For the type of article, its very good. I know that you and Sam have a certain streak of perfectionism, combined with a certain amount of excessive modesty, but, really, there's few other articles on cultural influence that could rival this. Whether that's a good or bad thing is debatable, but I, for onem want to see Sam's hard work properly recognised. Adam Cuerden talk 20:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it's B-class, because it has pretty much all the info that it needs to have. On the other hand, it has some repetition, and its structure needs to be considered. Most importantly, I think, many of the examples listed are unreferenced. I believe that G&S was referenced in these TV shows, etc., but we need citations! I also think some of the information here is disorganized (but since I was the person who threw it together, it is hard for me to fix it), and I also doubt that it is anywhere near GA-class. Just my opinion. I think that you should take a very critical look at it and see whether you can help out with referencing, etc. I think that all these movie and tv references can be found somewhere on the 'net, but hanged if I know where. -- Ssilvers 21:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Fair points, though to some extent the shows themselves will serve as a reference. It's certainly not at, say, Featured List level, in any case.
- I'll try and dig out some references and have a copyedit after I nap. Hey, this is off-topic, but ho does Ediacaran biota look to you? Adam Cuerden talk 21:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Ediacaran looks like a GA to me. There are some minor formatting issues, and the External links should go below the references. Looks pretty complete and nicely illustrated, though. As for the references here, we need to prove that G&S was mentioned in a significant way, in each of the cases. For instance, we say that a song was sung in such-and-such a TV episode, but we need to give the evidence so that a reader can verify it. -- Ssilvers 21:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- In the first place, I'm sorry if I come across as a tough grader!
- My concern is that the page doesn't really have much structure; it's just a loosely-organized set of miscellaneous facts. Parts of it are close to listcruft. I believe Sam said (elsewhere) that a lot of the material was basically a salvage job from other articles — material that had no proper home, but that we didn't want to lose. IMO, a good-quality article on this subject would read more like an essay (properly sourced, of course), rather than being a hodge-podge list of the cultural references that happen to be available.
- I also think that, among the G&S articles in WP, this one ought to be pretty low priority to get to GA-quality. Obviously this is a hobby, which means people can work on whatever they want. But in terms of priority, the Mikado, Pinafore and Pirates articles are going to attract a lot more attention than this one. Marc Shepherd 22:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes and no: We need to get rid of the list-cruft on all the other articles, and getting this one to GA might help with that. Mikado's not going to pass if it has a Cultural Influence section full of list cruft worse than this. Adam Cuerden talk 01:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] I think I know what the problem is...
This article is supposed to be about the cultural influence of G&S, but it's actually about pop-culture references to G&S, which is not quite the same thing. Consequently, it comes across as a (not-so) little list of the latter. It's disappointing, because the question of whether G&S have any significant cultural influence (other than Gilbert's elevation of lyric writing to a high art) isn't answered or even discussed.
I've added a reference to a "Tit-Willow" parody on Perry Como's TV show. I was going to say something about 1900 not being a leap year, but that's mentioned in the section on Isaac Asimov. It's my view that "Pirates" is roughly contemporary with the date of its production (ie, Frederick was born in 1856 and the story takes place in 1877), and that Gilbert either overlooked the fact that 1900 would not be a leap year, or deliberately ignored it, because "nineteen forty-four" is clumsy to set, even as recitative. Even if Gilbert was consciously aware that 1900 would not be a leap year, he might very well have decided that Frederick would be ignorant of it.
WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 14:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
