If you wish to add a link, please feel free. I think it inconceivable that anyone reading an article about an actor will need to have it explained to him what an impresario is. Tim riley talk17:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
During this time a brief and costly attempt at theatrical production in London – it’s not clear that this is talking about Lytton and not other people*
Altered.
half a dozen – ‘six’? (or did you intend the number to be less exact?)
Just so.
comic patter-baritone roles – is this the conventional way of describing such roles? (it seems a little convoluted imo)*
Googling "comic patter-baritone" suggests this is pretty much par for the course
Understood. AM
Is 'Les p'tites Michu' not the correct title to use here?*
No. In London it and its title were given in English
If you think readers of an article about a performer in comic opera need to be told what a comic opera is, please feel free to add a link. Tim riley talk17:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that there is not a single English speaker who does not know what a knight is, and if they don't know what a memoir is, this is not the place for them to learn it. The articles on "comic opera" and "operetta" are rather poor articles (I know, as I have tried to contribute to them and editors there do not want to change some very bad writing.), and it would not, IMO, help the readers here to click over there and read the confusing and contradictory discussions about these nearly interchangeable terms. Gilbert and Sullivan called their works comic operas largely to distinguish them in style from French operettas, but none of that is very important here, and the links would be, IMO, a distraction for readers. Anyone who really wants to see more about these genres can search the terms. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The quality of the article is not, as far as I understand, a reason for not linking to an article. I would like an article that describes A Trip to China as a comic opera to have a link Amitchell125 (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
of Gilbert and Sullivan's Princess Ida – Consider introducing Gilbert and Sullivan here using their own articles, and not lumping them as ”G&S”.
We link to the G&S article for their joint works and to their separate articles when only one of them is the writer/composer.
OK, but the link to the article about Sullivan is some way down the text (in the Principal comedian: 1909 to 1934 section). He and Gilbert should both be introduced where their names first appear, or nearby to the first provincial tour of Gilbert and Sullivan's Princess Ida. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tim riley. Gilbert and Sullivan is the important link in this context, except where the person is referred to separately, as in cases where Lytton dealt separately with either man. The Gilbert and Sullivan article certainly gives a good summary about each man and, of course, links and cross-references to their individual articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Ss. While you're here, have you any thoughts on "comic patter-baritone", above? My own everyday terminology would be "principal comedian", but I think the three-word term is more specific and helpful in an encyclopaedia article. What think you? Tim riley talk17:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sources use both terms. The D'Oyly Carte Opera Company formally called the person who played the Grossmith roles the "Principal Comedian", but most G&S fans call them the "patter" or "patter-baritone" roles. Some G&S authorities, such as Marc Shepherd, object to referring to Grossmith, Lytton and their successors as "patter" men, or the roles as "the patter roles", as they think it trivializes the roles. I recently reduced the number of references to "patter" and "patter baritone", using "principal comedian" where appropriate, but I think we need to use the more descriptive term, "comic patter-baritone", in those places where it is currently used. I think the entry has it about right, currently. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1.2 Principal comedian on tour 1887 to 1897
Link baronet; understudy.
medium-sized towns – is too vague imo (looking at it, the first performing in medium-sized towns and the second in the major provincial cities seems excessively detailed)*
I think it important to show that HL moved from the lesser to the more major company.
OK, but how is a reader supposed to know what a "medium-sized town'" is? Perhaps it would make sense to amend the text to 'the first performing in major provincial cities and the second in smaller-sized towns'. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "smaller-sized" is no better than medium-sized, which implies (as is true) that they were not really small towns but also not major cities. The language given makes it clear enough to the reader, I think, that one touring company played to theatres in larger communities than the other, which is the key point. One could list the numerous cities and towns where each company played, but the list would violate WP:NOTDATABASE: the brief characterization that the article gives is more encyclopedic. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. AM
the last of these – it sounds as if Lytton referred to your list.
Altered
the latest Savoy opera – I would avoid latest (MOS:RELTIME).*
Altered
(1893: "Mr Henry A. Lytton scored immensely by his clever impersonation of Captain the Hon. Felix Flapper, R.N, – his efforts were rewarded by sustained applause and laughter"), - perhaps better as a separate note?
Better in the text, in my view, if one wants every reader to see something, which here I do.
1.3 The Savoy: 1897 to 1903
Link heat wave. (not linked)
Consider including the composer’s name when mentioning His Majesty.
Not sure this adds anything of significance, and consistency would then require us to add the names of the composers of the nine pieces in the next paragraph, which I think would be unwieldy and unnecessary.
Understood. AM
He was an emergency replacement for Grossmith - ‘He replaced, Grossmith’?*
It would be a pity to omit mention that it was an emergency.
Understood. AM
61 performances – I would convert other numbers greater than 9 to numerals (as you have done here), for the sake of consistency.
Changed.
Introduce Walter Passmore.*
Done.
£1,000 – I would show what this is equivalent to in modern terms.*
This is difficult: The Measuring Worth site gives four widely differing values depending on the chosen index. In this case:
Apart from his musical comedy roles – consider starting a new paragraph here, as the subject has changed (hence the blip in the chronology in the text).*
I'll ask an image expert for comment on this point.
You have marked this with a red cross: with which of the GA criteria, rather than your own personal preferences, do you contend that this does not comply? Tim riley talk07:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1919–20 – ‘1919–1920’; ditto elsewhere in the article.*
This is to follow the vagaries of the Manual of Style. 1919–20 is approved, but for more than two successive years it has to be 1919–1921, God knows why.
Understood. AM
in three later seasons – as this is clearly true, I would rework the sentence to omit the phrase.*
Done
Carte v. D'Oyly Carte – I thought the latter was correct, should it not be consistently applied throughout the article?
The man's surname was Carte. The opera company was (and technically still is) the D'Oyly Carte company.
Interesting, thanks. AM
"the twiddly bits" – could this be explained to readers, perhaps in a note?*
I'm loth to engage in WP:OR. I think I know what Lytton meant by the phrase, but it isn't for me to tell readers what I think, though I imagine many will think roughly the same as I do
I disagree—I am a musician with an above-average knowledge of G&S, but I have no idea what the phrase is referring to. It might be better not to include it if its meaning is not clear. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree that we should censor a verbatim quote just because you personally do not understand it, but I have added the words used by the source to gloss the terms. Tim riley talk07:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have marked this with a red cross: with which of the GA criteria, rather than your own personal preferences, do you contend that this does not comply? Tim riley talk07:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This section is the only one with dates for individuals mention, which I would omit for the sake of consistency.
Understood. AM
Where people have a linked article it is not necessary or perhaps even helpful to give their dates, but here (as for Lytton's father earlier in the article) I think it helpful to give the dates, where known, for those without. I don't object to eliminating the dates for Henry Lytton Jr, but I think it might look a bit odd within the paragraph in question
Introduce Neville Cardus.*
Done
2 Recordings, film and broadcasts
c.1900 - c. 1900. (not addressed - AM)
The first paragraph seems to me to contain excessive trivia.
You have marked this with a red cross: with which of the GA criteria, rather than your own personal preferences, do you contend that this does not comply? Tim riley talk07:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot assume that the term will be understood by readers, even though it might be a familiar-sounding one to some, so I think it should be linked. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You might equally argue that you cannot assume readers will know that Ottawa etc are not in Britain, so that "international" is required. But linked. Tim riley talk07:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3.1 Notes
(N1) mention of this – imo readers should be able to understand the notes without referring to the text above, so I would replace this.*
(N3) Consider amending the sentence to something like ‘Lytton's inability to read a score was a reason why his biographer Brian Jones doubts he attended St Mark's School, where every pupil was taught to read music.’*
Better as it is, I think, not suggesting it is the sole or even main reason.
I disagree. Pupils, even in musical schools, are taught, not "made to learn", something I know from direct experience. The note should be amended to reflect this fact. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The current version represents the source much more faithfully than your vaguer version. "...impossible for a boy to go through St Mark's in the 1870s without having music drummed in - the inspectorate examined the ability of each whole class to read music".
Happy to agree, so why not include the words you quoted, to help other readers (including me) realise just what such this school was like in those days? Amitchell125 (talk) 07:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No clearer in my view, and I don't see how changing seven words to thirty-two meets criterion 1a (conciseness), but done.
3.3 Sources
The error message “Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named…” occurs for all the sources listed. These messages all go if 'ref=none' is included in the code (I have done one for you as an example, happy to do the rest as well).
I understand this is relevant to articles where sfn coding is used. The absence of the "ref=none" has produced no ill effects in any of the articles I have worked on that do not use sfn coding.
You misunderstand me. I am seeing the error messages. Therefore other readers could also be seeing them, so they need to be removed. I have explained how this can be done. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Parker, John; Freda Gale; Ian Herbert – amend to have all the names written with their surnames put first.
The present order is my usual practice, and has not been objected to at the numerous successful FACs I've been through.
My apologies for not being clearer, the list of names should read 'Parker, John; Gale, Freda; Herbert, Ian', which I believe is the correct way of listing them. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that, after the first name, which will alphabetize the list, the other names should be first name first. Does the MOS state otherwise? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the above. It would be helpful if you could indicate which, if any, suggested points you consider are mandatory under GA criteria 1−6 and which are your personal stylistic preferences. Tim riley talk10:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stars added. I've not starred the wikilink suggestions, as I'm not sure if you have to add appropriate links according to GA criteria, but see MOS:BUILD. No-one has ever queried the idea of ignoring the link-adding advice in 150 reviews though, and the suggested links are worth including imo. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 11:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It was chiefly your list of links that troubled me. I try to avoid WP:OVERLINK and many (not all) of your suggestions seemed to me just that. Some other points are excellent and I look forward to going through them over the next few days. Tim riley talk13:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley and Ssilvers: Thanks for all the progress being made here, based on what is a slightly "replying we sing, as one individual" approach—the comments labelled with the small red cross are still to be addressed. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, User:Amitchell125. We each addressed the first one (the G&S link), but you haven't replied to my discussion of it, which I feel stongly about. I will leave the last three to you and Tim riley. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
