Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thespis (opera)

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 promoted 16:28, 18 November 2007.

[edit] Thespis (opera)

Thespis is the first of the Gilbert and Sullivan operas. It's now lost, but there's a surprising amount of research that has been done on it, so we've been able to pull together quite a lot into this article. It contains all known contemporary illustrations, for instance, as well as coverage of the ideas of all the prominent scholars in the field. Marc Shepherd managed to dig up a century and a half's worth of critical commentary, I played the sceptic, making sure that the points of dispute and uncertainty are clearly so described, and Ssilvers did a lot of copy-editing and reworking, as well as research in his own right. In short, I think it's probably one of the best articles on Thespis in existence. Vanished user ^talk 22:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support Excellent article: very well-written, and well-cited as well. My only comment is that it's a bit jarring to jump right into the characters and songs from the lead; I'd suggest moving the Background section up and letting the previously-mentioned sections come later. MeegsC | Talk 22:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Aye, we've had quite a bit of discussion about order, but we'd have to figure out what to do with the "Production" section. I'll poke at it. Vanished user ^talk 23:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, I've had a poke at it. I suspect Silvers and Marc will rearrange it some more, but it should settle down within a day. Vanished user ^talk 23:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Right. The consensus is currently "See what other people think". We're open to rearrangement, but are somewhat hindered by there being no standardised style as of yet for opera articles. If no-one has strong views, we can put section order aside for the moment and start up an RfC to collect opinion? Vanished user ^talk 01:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      • We've come up with something that seems to work - I suspect the list of musical numbers might shift around a bit yet, but it should be fairly stable otherwise. 20:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• I see that Magic Flute, which is probably the closest to G&S among operas, has

• 1. Premiere and reception
  2. Background
  3. Roles
  4. Synopsis
     1. Act I
     2. Act II
  5. Noted arias

amd then assorted cruft. Beginning with the premiere is their reaction to special circumstances, but otherwise this seems a good plan. Production will make more sense when the reader knows what is being produced, and works well where it is, after the plot. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Right. I'll have a poke at it - at the worst, we could move the Genesis section to the top. Vanished user ^talk 18:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Done, more or less. Vanished user ^talk 20:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • What would you think of the synopsis before the cast ( and perhaps the reception)? That's a long way down to find out what happens, longer than in Magic Flute.
      • I think it's standard to have a list of who the characters are before talking about what they did in the show. Give this a couple days - it's proving difficult to please everyone. Vanished user ^talk 23:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
        • No problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • The reviews differed from the published libretto. Were these first-night reviews, as they would be now, or were things different in 1872?
      • A couple are first-night, most aren't. Between the weekly newspapers, time for preparing engravings in the illustrated newspapers, and Victorian rehearsal practices that meant shows were rarely, if ever, quite right the first night, the first night review hadn't really developed to the extent it would later. Actually, Gilbert was one of the major contributors to getting sufficient rehearsals before the first night, but that was a bit later. Vanished user ^talk 23:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
        • It would be a kindness to us ignoramuses to clarify a bit, then, especially if there were first-night changes in the book. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
          • That's the trouble, though: Only one edition of the libretto was printed, and scholars now believe it's full of errors, and may even just be an early draft. We know the ballet moved about from various reviews, and Rees, at least, thinks it was abridged sometime after the first night, but we don't know how. Tell me anything specific you find confusing, but realise that there are some things we just cannot know. =) Vanished user ^talk 00:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
            • • Please say the reviewers weren't all first-night; readers will assume otherwise. inserting "reviewers , writing during the first week of performances," or whatever the facts are, would be enough. If Rees doesn't say,fine
                • I think this has been fixed when I wasn't looking. Vanished user ^talk 00:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
              • If there was only one ecition of the libretto, what does But the text of the libretto, as published, remained "virtually unchanged" between December 1871 and March 1872 mean?
              • When was it published? Do we know? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
                • • I misspoke a bit: There were four reprints or so over the ~3 months (Late December to mid-March) Thespis ran, but they never updated the text to reflect changes on stage. I presume there must be enough differences to let them be told apart or Allen wouldn't be able to count the reprints, but the differences are presumably advertisements changing and things like that, as scholars are fairly unanimous in saying the libretto was corrupt and never got updated, even if they disagree to why. Vanished user ^talk 00:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Has "Little maid of Arcadee" been recorded?
      • Checking here, yes, but it looks like only on LP, and don't think they're currently in print. Vanished user ^talk 23:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • And, in case it's not clear from the tone, Support. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks! 23:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Haven't read it all yet, but my first impression is that is very well researched, written, and cited. A small thing: the word "ballet" is overused in the section "ballet". Ceoil 02:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Support Well done all involved. Ceoil 07:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all the edits. I put the "notability" stuff back into the first paragraph per WP:LEAD. Let's discuss if you feel strongly about moving it, but I think it also flows more logically where it is. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 16:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering, though, if the cast list wouldn't be better just after the synopsis: we do mention the cast rather a lot in the background sections. Vanished user ^talk 19:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem with the "notability" stuff; but I really think the cast list should be at the end, as a footnote. Did ye sort out the ballet issue bty. Ceoil 22:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The ballet issue? If you mean where it appeared in the opera, that's one of the many things that noone is quite sure of. Vanished user ^talk 22:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I went through the ballet section, and I don't see how we can reduce the number of times we say the word ballet. We are talking about three different ballets and other ballet music that Sullivan wrote (or re-used), so it is difficult to reduce the incidence of the word. I really think the language is OK as is. -- Ssilvers 04:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support Well written and well sourced article, with a good sense of its context in the overall works of the time. Kbthompson 10:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support: Well written, thoroughly researched and comprehensive --Broadwaygal 14:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support A well-sourced and clearly written article on an interesting topic, a lost G&S opera. Jack1956 16:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Clear, well-referenced, and much informative and interesting material that would be new to even the most dedicated Gilbert/Sullivan enthusiast. Right and proper that the debate above should go on about the arrangement of the facts, but as it stands it is wholly admirable. -- Tim riley (talk) 20:06, 16 November 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.