Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gilbert and Sullivan/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:57, 28 June 2007.

[edit] Gilbert and Sullivan

A very good short summary of their work. It's at the least very near FA level, and has a good team of dedicated people - of which I am one, if not as active recently as I have been - that will sort out any kinks that come up, so, I figured, let's give it a go. I will do everything in my power to fix any reasonable objections that come up. Vanished user ^talk 20:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comments I usually check for the top editors; surprised to find I am one, since I only cleaned up references.
  • Ssilvers 201
  • Marc Shepherd 88
  • Vanished user 51
  • SandyGeorgia 28

• I've watched Ssilvers careful work on and attention to this and other Musical theatre articles for a long time, and it's in pretty good shape. I'll clean up the references again, as I see a few are again unformatted. I'd like to see the External links pruned per WP:EL, WP:NOT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I've trimmed the links to the ones that seemed to be most informative, or otherwise important (the New England G&S society, for instance, produces an important newsletter. I'm open, however, to linking straight there, to bypass their somewhat awfully designed front page.) Vanished user ^talk 21:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Much better. What to do about those 500 px images, per WP:MOS#Images? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the really big one to centred below the text, as a divider. How's that look to you? Could drop the 400px one to 350 or so, if needed, or take details from it. Vanished user ^talk 22:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Much better. But ... WP:MOS says we shouldn't specify size at all, so user default prefs will work. I don't really understand what's driving that issue, so I'm not sure whether/when to object on that basis. Greek to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It goes on to give exceptions:f images with unusual aspect ratios, or where a detail is important, but couldn't be extracted without ruining the composition of the whole. The Utopia and the new Thespis image are wide, squat images (hence unusual), and the Sorcerer-Pinafore-Trial comes under the detail clause. Vanished user ^talk 23:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Thanks for the ref clean-up and other changes this evening, you two (and for the nice words). I think, however, before we worry too much more about image size and punctuation in the refs and links, that we need some more "macro-comments" from people. Where do people think the article still needs expansion, referencing, clarity, etc.? One thing that could be checked, if someone has time, is the many foreign-language articles on the subject - some of them have been given FA status in other languages (although it seems to me that FA is easier to get in many of the other language Wikipedias), and there may be some useful information that can be translated back to our version. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 04:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • Intro is five paragraphs and could be considered too long (also doesn't necessarily need references, the lead should summarise what is in the meat of the article below)
    • It doesn't necessarily need references, but it contains things that could be considered surprising, such as how much they influenced, and it's usually best to immediately reference anything like that.
    • As for the length of the lead: It does look a bit longer than it is because of the images pushing it left (and in a trivial sense, it's now only four paragraphs). However, I must admit it is, in fact, somewhat long, but think it's justified because the scope of this article - with summarises of 17 other articles - is very broad. Vanished user ^talk 12:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Emboldened title of article does not appear at the start of the article (this is a pretty standard convention ... "Gilbert and Sullivan were ...) - makes it seem like a sentence is missing.
    • Fixed. Vanished user ^talk 12:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • There's nothing about how/why Gilbert & Sullivan began to work together
    • Well... it's kind of boring: They did Thespis because they were asked to, but I suppose you're right that it should be included. I've clarified. Vanished user ^talk 12:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I added a little about how they met, but it's a little complicated, since they met socially at first, then worked together just on the Christmas entertainment, Thespis, and finally really came together in 1875 with Trial. I have added some description to try to clarify this. -- Ssilvers 13:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The result was a new crispness and polish in the English musical theatre - unreferenced opinion?
    • Not really, though it does need referenced, maybe clarified: Theatre was a bit of a mess in those days, and the Gilbert and Sullivan works were much better rehearsed and directed than any of the competition. I'll mark it and dig out a reference. Vanished user ^talk 12:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Not strictly related to the article, but why isn't Cultural influence of Gilbert and Sullivan in the template at the bottom of the page?
    • Honestly? Because it was created a week ago and no-one's edited the template to add it yet. I'll do so now. Vanished user ^talk 12:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Not much needed for a featured article - the prose itself is very good. Neil ╦ 10:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I also think the lead is excessively long. It could definitely be shortened to half of its size. You can merge of the removed info into other sections of the article. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I've cut all of paragraph four, and a few other sentences. How's it look now? Vanished user ^talk 01:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we've responded to Neil's comments. Any others? -- Ssilvers 16:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Nope, I'm happy - good stuff! Support. Neil ╦ 12:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support Everything looks good to me now. I would advise that you incorporate more book references. G&S have been documented in many scholarly works, and it would look more professional if you source your information from the books mentioned in the "References" section. For an example of referencing from books, see Samuel Adams. In that article, I tried to keep the online refs to a minimum, since the foremost and most accurate information on the subject come from books and other scholarly works. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it must be said that the internet sources used are, by and large, either from big names in Gilbert and Sullivan Scholarship (Crowther, Spencer, Tillett) or online copies of important books (The Reminiscenes of Jessie Bond, for instance, is the memoirs of one of the most important actresses in the original performances of Gilbert and Sullivan, who knew Gilbert well). Also, a lot of the footnotes have multiple references: Stedman, Ainger, and Wolfson are pretty well represented. Of course, the Cultural Influence section is a bit less scholarly and more newspaper-based, but, well, that's kind of a given. Vanished user ^talk 00:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. If you do add more references in the future, using book sources would be preferred. :) Nishkid64 (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll add some more in when I'm doing the Arthur Sullivan FA push. =) Vanished user ^talk 00:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support - I made a couple of minor fixes, but it's very good stuff. Promote away! Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 09:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose The lead-in is poorly written, the section on Patience to Gondoliers is too brief. The references are incomplete. Many comments in the article are unsupported, e.g., "They had much respect and affection for each other...." (This is but one of numerous examples.) This article only recently made "Good Article." It's time to pause and put in some really high-quality work before promoting it to FA. Marc Shepherd 00:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reasons specified by Marc Shepherd. Let's comb through the references and put page numbers to the various assertions. I will undertake to work on expanding the discussion of the various key operas, and I hope someone else will work on the referencing. Let's not seek glory before we've earned it. -- Ssilvers 03:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support—Mostly very well-written. But make "tuneful and memorable melodies" --> "memorable tunes". Is it in BrEng? "Quarreled" is US. "Short-story writer". It's so good that it won't take long for someone unfamiliar with it to catch the few little glitches. Tony 10:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak oppose I've left some hidden comments, clearly you need to sort out the citation requests before the article can be promoted. Also, check the pd tags on the figures: "Reproduction is allowed for educational purposes." is that compatible with GFDL? Can you provide death dates for the artists/photographers so that we know the "100 years" does apply, etc. Thanks. DrKiernan 12:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

These photos were certainly published in the US before 1923, so I'd use the PD-US tag, unless someone has the info on the photographer. -- Ssilvers 14:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Although I've cleaned up the references in this article three or four times now, every time I return to it, I find unformatted references. Is the article stable if refs can't be maintained during FAC? Also, why is Marc Shepherd (talk · contribs)'s personal website used as a source, and what makes him a reliable source ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

  The problem as that this article became a FAC at a point when a number of editors still considered it incomplete. More references are needed, but I am not sure why those already supplied aren't being properly maintained. I am flattered that others consider my personal website (which long pre-dates Wikipedia) sufficiently reliable to cite. However, it is completely unnecessary to do so, as there are other sources for the same information. Marc Shepherd 03:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.