Wikipedia:Peer review/H.M.S. Pinafore/archive1

H.M.S. Pinafore

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed article for peer review because, after it was promoted to GA-class, I expanded the Analysis section, among other changes. I would like community input to see if editors have any suggestions for improvements before going to FAC. I'm particularly interested in thoughts on the prose, MOS, reference formatting or other referencing issues, but any and all comments are welcome. Thanks, Ssilvers (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2009.

Comments responded to. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments

I have learned more about Pinafore from this than I ever knew before, even when I played the part of Bob Beckett in a juvenile production many years ago (a more demanding role than most people realise). So far I have had a general read-through, and picked up a few points. I will be looking more closely during the next few days; meantime here are a few initial comments.

• The images are generally excellent, but I feel there are rather too many of them, particularly in the earlier parts of the article. They tend to crowd the prose a little, and it might be advisable to drop one or two.

Thanks. I redistributed the images better and reduced a couple in size. See what you think. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• 571 performances in the initial run: I have seen references to 700 in quite reputable publications. Can these be discounted, or is there a way of reconciling these figures?

Yep, I have these sources too. They're just repeating an erroneous figure given by an enthusiastic biographer long ago. This is a problem with G&S - lots of books just repeated old myths. But Jacobs, Stedman, Ainger and Rollins & Witts are/were real scholars and went back to the records. 571 performances in the original run is extremely well-documented, and all the scholars agree. We'd love to say 700 (which would have been a world's record), but it's just wrong. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Would it be worth footnoting this information, in case others are likewise disconcerted by the false figure? Brianboulton (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It is footnoted at fn 58 where the number first appears in the body of the article. I don't think that it should be footnoted in the introduction, per WP:LEAD, which discourages footnotes in the lead, unless something is controversial. This is not controversial, just often wrongly stated, and not only does the source at note 58 cover it, but also the source at fn 38. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• There are rather a lot of quotes in the article, and some of them are very long, for example the Era quote in the "Initial critical reception" section – which has an extensive blockquote in addition. There seem to be opportunities for paraphrase that have been missed, as I also note long quotes in other sections.

I have struggled with this. I've just streamlined the Era quote, but it's delicious. Specific suggestions on this one would be most welcome. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I have reduced the quotes some more. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• Notes [14] and [46] appear to be unreferenced footnotes that need sources

I added a cite for 14, and I deleted 46, since it's not needed and doesn't really add to the cites already given there. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• This statement is POV as it stands, and also needs a citation: "Upon the publication of the vocal score, a review by The Academy exemplified a long series of lamentations by critics that would hound Sullivan throughout the rest of his career"

I could give a lot of examples, beginning with Sorcerer, generally citing Stedman and Jacobs, but I think that the reader will get the idea from the various quotes provided; so I deleted the assertion and will let the quote speak for itself. Thanks for the comments so far. Looking forward to your further review. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Continuing the review... I am sorry this is a bit piecemeal, but I have to get to it when I can. I am doing some very minor fixing as I go along - you can follow these from the edit history Couple of points in the lead

• "The title of the work itself is humorous, as it juxtaposes the name of a little girl's garment, pinafore, with the symbol of a naval warship." I can't find this observation in the text, so it appears to be a bit of editorial comment.

I shall search for a good source for the observation and add information into the Background section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

While this statement is obvious (or because it is obvious), I could not find a reliable source for it. There are performing group websites that say it, but they would not pass WP:RS. See, e.g., this site. I asked several people, all of whom said they felt it was too obvious to need attribution, noting that British warships of the time typically had names like Victory (a model for the Pinafore set), Indominatable and Invincible. Also, File:Punch - Sullivan's knighthood.png this is a comic showing Sullivan wearing a pinafore with the waistband saying "Pinafore". However, I have taken out the assertion that it is humorous, and we can let the reader conclude that for him/herself. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone pointed me to a cite, and I have now added the information, with the cite, to the Analysis section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• I just wonder if there is a better (or alternate) word than "hit", which is used twice in lead and again in the first line of the Background section, which has a repetitive feel.

I reduced the number of instances of the word. Need to watch out that we don't say "success" too many times, too. Any further suggestions along these lines most welcome. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

How about "sensation"? I did not read Brian's comments, on purpose, as I wanted to review without his views coloring mine.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I like this suggestion, but now I can't see where to put it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Background section (mostly prose quibbles):-

• Suggest: "then the manager of the Royalty Theatre for Selina Dolaro" becomes "then managing the Royalty Theatre for Selina Dolaro"

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk)

• Suggest "also" and its surrounding commas are redundant

Took out a whole unnecessary phrase. -- Ssilvers (talk)

• Problem phrase: "...and whom they felt they could mould to their own style." The "and" is unnecessary, but the main problem is with "their own style", where "their" could be read as relating to the actors. Could the phrase become: "...whom they felt they could mould to a required style" (or similar)?

Well, it was a new "realist/naturalist" style of acting and direction that was almost unique to Gilbert and Sullivan, as the article discusses later. I've simplified the sentence. See if it is clearer now, despite the fact that I have retained "their own style". I don't think you can read it as referring to the actors - the sentence uses "they or their" to refer consistently to the triumvirate. -- Ssilvers (talk)

I think I've fixed it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Awkward bit of prose: "Gilbert sent Sullivan a plot sketch on 27 December 1877, while Sullivan was on holiday on the Riviera, accompanied by the following note:" - reads as though Sullivan was on holiday with a note. Rephrasing advised.

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk)

• "...Gilbert's intentions in this early sketch..." Need to clarify that by "sketch" you mean the outline to Sullivan quoted earlier.

I've simplified the paragraph. Is it clear now? -- Ssilvers (talk)

• Passive voice (I'm not too good at these so I may have missed others): "Musical rehearsals began for the cast" - change to "The cast began musical rehearsals..."

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk)

• "finalize" - US spelling? Mostly spelling seems Brit-Eng, best be consistent

Fixed. If you see this kind of thing, feel free to just fix it - that must be easier than writing out a comment.  :-) Of course we intend to use UK spelling, but I am a Yank, so I don't always notice US spellings. -- Ssilvers (talk)

• Re Hebe: "[G&S] cut most of the dialogue out of the role and turned the rest into recitative" – the libretto has just two lines of dialogue/recit for Hebe, immediately before the Act II finale, so the cuts to the part seem even more severe than you indicate.

OK, fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• The Plot synopsis is superb

Original poduction

• The significance of the Goossens sentence is not apparent. The effect of his peformance is not explained

It's a bit of a mystery. No one knows anything about it, but clearly it happened. The sources don't discuss it. Was it promotional by Carte, or a favor to Goosens? Don't know. I'll try to dig deeper and report back. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

We found out that in fact Alfred Cellier conducted the performance, and that it was, in fact, organized by Carte. Cites now added and info corrected. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Further digging revealed that Goossens did indeed conduct it. But it was certainly organized by Carte to promote the show. I think the statement is OK as it currently stands, unless you have a further comment. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• Some tenses conflict here: "By September, Pinafore was playing to full houses at the theatre, the piano score sold 10,000 copies, and Carte sent two additional companies out to tour the piece in the provinces." To resolve the grammar it needs to say "had sold" and "had sent".

I broke it into two sentences. Stedman is not precise about the dates that the tours started, and so I should not have thrown all those things into the same sentence. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• "Carte used the enforced closure of the theatre to invoke a contract clause reverting the rights of Pinafore and Sorcerer to Gilbert and Sullivan after its initial run." What does "its" refer to in this sentence?

Good catch. Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk)

• "with six months remaining on the agreement..." Clarify: is this agreement the lease referred to in the previous paragraph?

Will check again. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I've deleted the redundancy. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, have to break here, will definitely be back Brianboulton (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Super comments. Let me know if you're satisfied with the above (and in some cases, I need to check and get back to you). Looking forward to more comments. It's just as well that you are doing it in bite-sized pieces, as that makes it easy for me too. Why don't you start a new subheading next time for ease of commenting/replying. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought you weren't supposed to use subheadings on these pages, but if you say so...

Review part 2

Original production (continued)

• Confused wording: "He sought to engage a theatre and cast some chorus members for the American production and tours of Pinafore, Sorcerer and a new opera by Gilbert and Sullivan." Do you "engage" a theatre? Do you "cast" a chorus, for that matter? I would suggest, for clarification: "He sought to rent a theatre and to engage chorus members for the American productions and tours of Pinafore and Sorcerer, and for a new Gilbert and Sullivan opera."

Thanks. I made a change along the lines you suggest. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Sullivan was recovering from an operation to crush kidney stones." Eh? Can you clarify exactly what operation he was recovering from?

He had an operation "to crush a kidney stone", which had been causing him terrible pain. This is exactly what Ainger and Jacobs say. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• "The court permitted the production to go on, transferring to the Olympic Theatre in September..." - that reads as though it was the court which transferred to the Olympic Theatre. Rephrasing necessary

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Taking Pinafore to the U.S.

• Over a hundred..." → "Over 100..."? This sentence needs some sort of timeframe.

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• "These pirated versions took many forms, including burlesque versions, versions with men playing women's roles and vice-versa, spoof versions, all-negro versions, Catholic versions, German, Yiddish and other foreign-language versions..." I've been working on this to try to reduce the seven repetitions of "versions" in this part-sentence. What do you say to: "These pirated versions took many forms, including burlesque, men playing women's roles and vice-versa, spoofs, all-negro versions, Catholic versions, German, Yiddish and other foreign-language renderings..."

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• It should be stated that the dolls and household items were themed in some way.

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Last paragraph: I suggest dropping the final two sentences, which are not related to Pinafore, and adjusting the remaining text slightly, thus: "Pinafore opened in New York on 1 December 1879 (with Gilbert onstage in the chorus) and ran for the rest of December. After a reasonably strong first week audiences quickly fell off, since most New Yorkers had already seen local productions of Pinafore. Meanwhile Sullivan raced to complete the score for the new opera and began, with Gilbert, to rehearse it with the cast."

Changes made, although we need to mention the tours.

Tweaked it some more. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Children's production: I believe we're back in England now, but this needs to be made clear.

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Reception: I can only repeat, and reinforce, the concern I expressed about overuse of verbatim quotes. Aside from the long blockquotes, I have worked out that about 70% of the remaining text for this section (both parts) is in quote marks. That, I think, is much too much. Two questions: do you need all these quotes to demonstrate Pinafore's reception? – and, could not some of the material be paraphrased? This is part of the relevant advice from WP:QUOTE:

"Third, while quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Too many quotes take away from the encyclopedic feel of Wikipedia. Also, editors should avoid long quotations if they can keep them short. Long quotations not only add to the length of many articles that are already too long, but they also crowd the actual article and remove attention from other information."

Please consider this. When I presented Mozart family grand tour to FAC a few months back I got rather hammered for the overuse of quotes, which were to a far lesser extent than you have here.

I will go thru carefully to try to reduce the quotes as you suggest. This will take me a few days. BTW, on commas, I disagree with your changes to remove commas after introductory phrases. They are optional, but I prefer them and think they add to comprehension. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

More to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

and finally...

Analysis: only a few points here.

• The tendency to overuse quotes continues into this section, at least in the earlier parts of it. My comments above apply here also.

OK, will review. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• In the first sentence of the third paragraph of the Songs and musical analysis subsection you have quotes within a quote. The inner quotations should have single quote marks rather than the normal doubles.

Fixed, thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Not a criticism of the article, but I am curious to know what Jacobs means when he talks of musical resource being "lavished" on the character of Dick Deadeye. Deadeye's part, musically, is very slight – no song of his own, one duet, some interventions and ensemble singing in the two finales, and that's it. Any thoughts?

I can only speculate, but I would say that Deadeye's singing in counterpoint to the rest of the ensemble in the Act I finale is quite musically interesting. Although he has not aria, I'd say that the Act II duet is really "his" number, as the Captain is basically just reacting to what Deadeye does. Even though the role is not that big, I think that people come away from seeing the opera thinking that he's a very prominent character. So, I wouldn't really put it the way that Jacobs does, but I do think that Sullivan's handling of the role gave it a lot of prominence. In any case, your guess is as good as mine. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I just reread The Times review, which also praised the duet and said that it was "especially remarkable for a charming orchestral ritornet. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Recordings: a number of your citations to this section are to web pages which you describe as published by "A Gilbert and Sullivan discography". This is not the publisher - it's not immediately clear who is publishing these pages. Is it a private effort? If so, how will it stand up to Ealdgyth's dreaded FAC question: "What makes XYZ a reliable source"?

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan/Marc Shepherd's Gilbert and Sullivan Discography. As for the citation format, compare the article on Trial by Jury, which was already promoted to FA and cites the discography. We will certainly refer to this discography in all of our G&S articles, as it is the most important G&S discography. Any suggestions about how to cite it are welcome, but perhaps you should use this talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Adaptations: the five items should be presented in a common prose style. The first three are OK, the last two, which begin with incomplete sentences, need slight adjustment.

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Cultural impact

• "opéra bouffe" not "opera bouffe"

Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• 20 not twenty years

Are you sure about this? I have seen editors change it the other way. Also, I prefer to have a comma after introductory phrases like this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought the style rule was numbers over 10 to be written numeriaccly unless they start a sentence. Maybe I'm wrong? Brianboulton (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

See WP:MOSNUM: It's optional, but I think the preferred style is that if it's just one word, like twenty, most editors prefer to spell it out. Here's the basic rule, but then it's followed by maybe 15 complex examples: "numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred, but 3.75, 544, 21 million" -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• "parody and pastiche": why is pastiche linked on its second mention (2nd para first line), rather than in its first mention in the line above? "Parody", which occurs lots of times in the text, doesn't appear linked at all.

Good catch! Fixed the link. Isn't "parody" a common English word? See WP:OVERLINK. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• "In addition" is a bit inelegant, as it's an incomplete phrase. Perhaps try "Likewise..."?

OK, good idea. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• ...and the words "For example" are not really necessary at the start of the following sentence.

How else would you indicate that these are just a few examples? -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the sense of the paragraph makes that clear, without the specific words "for example", (which strictly speaking should be "As examples" since there is more than one. This is not a sticking point – I'm happy with your decision to leave it. Brianboulton (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I revisited and revised. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Subsequent performances

• In the table, the reopening date during the interrupted original run is given as 31 January 1879. Earlier in the article you said: "In February 1879 Pinafore resumed...

Fixed, thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• In the table you have the "first London revival" commencing 12 November 1887. Earlier in the section you say that Pinafore ran in every year between 1878 and 1888, so in what sense was the 1887 production a "revival"?

There were many productions in the years 1878-1888: The original London and NY productions in 1878-89 and then many tours, and then the London revival in 1887. I think the sentence indicates this, but if you can suggest a clarification, please let me know. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Any reason why you chose to restrict the table to performances/revivals in Gilbert's lifetime?

I didn't make that decision originally, but a line needs to be drawn somewhere, and all the G&S opera articles, including Trial, which is FA, are consistent on this point. Besides, during his lifetime, W. S. Gilbert personally directed all the authorized professional productions (except the Australian ones), and so they are significant in that respect, too. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Historical casting: what was the criterion for deciding that a performance was "significant"?

The D'Oyly Carte Opera Company productions were the only professional productions authorized in the world, except for the Australia productions by the J. C. Williamson company. As the subsequent production section above notes, DOC ran numerous tours and London productions of Pinafore for over 100 years. So, as the introduction to the table states, what we have done, as was accepted with Trial by Jury last time, is to look at either new D'Oyly Carte London productions, or new long-running DOC tours, at approximately 10-year intervals, and present cast lists that represent the most famous cast members performing these roles at these times, which a review of the source materials has shown to be a good representative sample of the best-known DOC performers through the years. For more information, see the FAC for Trial. [revised] -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Notes: part of [151], and all of [199], are uncited footnotes.

Fixed, thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Overall: Despite my criticisms entered above, this is a great article – comprehensive, well-presented, in general a joy to read. I imagine that even as I write, your private Nibelung army is busy in the caves, hewing out the ten or eleven articles that will surely follow this. I will look out for them.

Brianboulton (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your detailed attention to this article. I am very grateful, since this is such an important article to the G&S project. Give me a few days to consider your comments, go to the sources in some cases and respond. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

A few comments from this corner

Lede: Is it really necessary to say in the lede the name of the opera that Pinafore was second to in the number of performances? Seems trivial. Why not just say "one of the longest" or consign cloches to a footnote?

Thanks for looking at the article. This is a good question, and I have struggled with this one quite a bit. The statement that it was second begs the question: "what was first?" And I think it's very significant that it was second, not third or fourth. Plus the mention of Cloches doesn't take up much space. It could be footnoted, but footnotes are discouraged in WP:LEAD. We could say a "nearly unprecedented" run of 571 performances, but that would raise the same problem, I think. Further comment welcome on this difficult issue. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Background: "everyone identified Sir Joseph Porter". I assume you mean everyone involved in the production. Since when the opera came out, everyone did identify Smith with Porter, including, famously, Disraeli, some limit to the "everyone" here would be good.

Revised to clarify that it means the audiences and critics. Added footnote re: Disraeli. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe move it to reception, then?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Caption of image: From the caption, and the repetition of the "go below" phrase, one might think that the phrase was particularly associated with Smith, which is surely not the case, it is just a landlubber's reaction to watching the sea go up and down and up and down... excuse me, I need to go below. Ah, better. Anyway (wipes mouth), I suggest a slight rephrase so the reader doesn't think Gilbert borrowed the phrase from the cartoon or from Smith.

Clarified. Gilbert used the same phrase as Punch to make the same satric point. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I didn't know that. Since I am not at home, I did not read up on Pinafore in my sources before commenting.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"Gilbert's focus on visual accuracy provided a foundation for his absurd characters and situations." I know what you are trying to say here, and to borrow a ten pound word from Mikado, verisimilitude. Perhaps a similar, less weighty word?

Do you mean "foundation"? Sorry, I'm not sure what you're saying. Feel free to suggest something. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I do mean foundation. I'm trying to think of a better term to convey to the reader that the realism of the sets added to the humor of the unusual characters and situations, but I can't come up with one.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I went back to Stedman and used her words, clarifying the explanation, I hope? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Why do we need references to Sullivan's kidney pain in consecutive paragraphs? Consolidate, please.

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Act I: "The Boatswain demurs that he's never thought about that". "That" is presumably Buttercup's secret. But she hasn't actually said that she has a secret, and I see no indication that is what the Boatswain is thinking of, he's simply responding to Buttercup's general point and not thinking it refers to her specifically. Deadeye presumaby is talking about thinking about that a fair exterior may hide a foul interior, rather than relating it to Buttercup either in the past or presently.

Good point. I moved the description of Dick lower down. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Logical that Dick would think of such things, given his self description and that his foul exterior hides most of the words of common sense in the opera.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"elated by Sir Joseph's views on equality" Perhaps add the word "stated" before "views". I think that Sir Joseph talks a good fight on equality but it is pretty clear what he thinks!

Jacobs and Stedman say that Sir J. naively believes what he says, but that he is a hypocrite because he nevertheless does not apply this belief to himself. Other sources say that Sir J. doesn't mind praising the sailors, because they are too low down to challenge his authority, but that he treats the Captain badly, because the captain is more of a threat to him. In any case, I think that "stated views" would be overkill here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well, let it go then.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"equality is out of the question". I'm not at home, but I remember this as "equality's" and what I can find online backs me up.

Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Act I Finale: Is it worth a mention that the Sir Joseph's harem is also there, singing to the skies symphathetically?

Done. I also say "ship's company", at the end of the paragraph, to include them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'd think they would not be a part of the ship's company, which I would take as equivalent to "crew".--Wehwalt (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Act II: "Captain Corcoran reviews his concerns: his "kindly crew rebels", his "daughter to a tar is partial", his friends seem to desert him, and Sir Joseph has threatened a court-martial." This is prose, perhaps we should avoid Gilbert's rhyme.

I actully didn't realize that I had retained the rhyme until you just now pointed it out. I don't think it upsets the "encyclopedic tone", and I think it give us a chance to write with some style. Is there a stylistic or rhetorical objection? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Stylistic, I guess. If you think it adds to it, I won't step on your toes.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"and that if he can persuade her that 'love levels all ranks'" Unless you know the opera or think about this hard, "he" could just as easily be Corcoran. Little fatherly persuasion, not unreasonable. Of course it is not, but the phrasing is ambiguous.

Good catch. Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"still guilty about her planned elopement with Ralph" Even in 1878, probably not a crime for Josephine. Perhaps "feeling guilty"?

Aye, aye! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Original production: "Soon, however, the piece suffered from weak ticket sales, generally ascribed to a heat wave that summer,[34][35] although historian Michael Ainger states that there were several heat waves each of short duration." Perhaps too much talking about the weather. Does Ainger suggest that the weak ticket sales were not due to the heat, or are they arguing about a thirty day heat wave versus five six day heat waves? I guess it comes down to, what's Ainger's point?

Ainger seems to be questioning that the heat wave(s) was really (or at least solely) responsible for the poor ticket sales (although everyone else says it was). Ainger's argument is not crystal clear, unfortunately, but Ainger is the most recent and probably the best researched source. What would you suggest? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest making it clearer that Ainger disagrees with the traditional explanation, citing the fact that the heat waves in the summer of 1878 were short and transient.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"and the audience began to rise." It doesn't take long to rise. Perhaps "began to make its way to the exits"?

Streamlined the description. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"Carte left in June for New York to make arrangements for an "authentic" production there. He sought to rent a theatre and to engage chorus members for the American production, for tours of Pinafore and Sorcerer, and for a new Gilbert and Sullivan opera." I guess what is meant is he's hoping to do the advance work for tours of the new G&S work, but what it actually says is that he's going to NY to arrange for the new G&S work. Rather difficult with both Gilbert and Sullivan in the U.K.

No, I mean that he was arranging for the NY production of Pinafore and the new opera, and also the tours. I've clarified further. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Taking Pinafore to the United States:

"all-negro" hmmm. Is that going to be looked at well by a 21st century reader? Perhaps "all-black"?

Interesting. I'm not sure that would be clear enough. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a quotation that includes the description of the various casts? If so, suggest using it there--Wehwalt (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a neutral descriptor as used here. In fact, I am sure that the black versions were minstrel or "coon" versions, alhough the source's describing them as "negro" versions is actually whitewashing the description a little, so to speak. Brian says I have too many quotes as is. Let's see if anyone else finds it problematic. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

We changed it to all-black as you suggested. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

More later.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thought-provoking comments, thanks! See if I've addressed all your above comments. Looking forward to the rest. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, some more. Don't know if I will finish, but we'll see:

Reception: The paper praised Grossmith, noting with amusement that he was made up to look like portraits of Horatio Nelson, "and his good introductory song seems levelled at the gentleman who is responsible for the present efficiency of the navy ..." Can we assume the stupidity of the reader and sneak in a reminder that Smith is being referred to here without harming the flow of the text?

Done! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Any thought on moving "Children's production" to "Reception"? It seems a bit awkward where it is, and the reception section is relatively short. It's one of those situations where it doesn't fit perfectly either place, and obviously I don't insist. Just suggesting it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Others say that the reception section is too long, and so I have been trying to cut it down. In any case, the children's production was a key early production that was, in some senses, part of the original production, so I'd rather leave it where it is. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I know I am being incredibly picky, but as far as I can tell, only one villager in The Sorcerer fell in love with someone of a different social class (Mrs. Partlet) (assuming we do not count Lady Sangazure and Sir Marmaduke as villagers).

I have changed it to "villagers and wedding guests" The whole chorus should become engaged to people of different classes, ages etc. For instance, a farmer or butcher should be paired with Aline's maid of honor, a "downstairs" maid should be paired with one of Alexis's groomsmen, etc. This is a key part of Gilbert's topsy-turvy concept in Sorcerer. I guess that, yes, I am counting Marmaduke and Sangazure as villagers for the purpose of making this point. I could say "inhabitants of ploverleigh", but it seems to be too much detail for the point being made, don't you think? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I just thought of another example from the dialogue between Alexis and Aline. He says that he wants to "break down the artificial barriers of rank...." and has lectured on the benefits that would accrue to wealthy ladies of rank if they married commoners, but the aristocracy hold aloof from his notions of equality. Your instinct is right that the ill-assorted unions in Ploverleigh are more than just class based: they are also age-based, etc., but the theme that it has in common with Pinafore is the social class theme. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

"In the Captain's opening song, "I am the Captain of the Pinafore", his experience at sea is belied by occasional seasickness, and his gentlemanliness "hardly ever" gives way to swearing at his men." Corcoran swears at his men in the opening song? He mentions "hardly ever" using a big big D, but I wouldn't call that swearing at his men. Of course, he does let loose late in Act II, but that doesn't seem to be conveyed.

I have clarified the language, but yes, when he does swear, it would be at his men (who else?). The joke is that sea captains swear at their crew continually. Here is a ludicrously gentlemanly one who "hardly ever" swears. That was a knee slapper. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no doubt. Even Victorian audiences would understand that, even though they would pretend not to know the words.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is Smith reintroduced here, with wikilink to full name? By this time, Smith should need no introduction. And calling him a "newsagent" is probably a bit of understatement. It's not like he sells pipe-lights in the Regent Circus or something.

WP linking guidelines say that when you haven't mentioned a linked item in a long time, you should link it again. At this point, we haven't mentioned Smith for an awful long time. I changed it to news entrepreneur, but all the sources call him a newsagent.

Please be consistent and consult WP:MOS on song title capitaliation. Also, Pinafore should probably be italicized even when in a title ("I am the Captain of the Pinafore") unless I am greatly mistaken.

Will do, thanks, except in the song title, Pinafore refers to the boat, not the show. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Cut material:

Is it really worth putting an ellipsis in the Captain's solecism line to omit the word "he"? Can't you rephrase around it? Perhaps change "who" to "because" or a similar word?

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

In Background, you say Jessie Bond had "little experience" as an actress. Here, you say she had "no experience" as an actress.

She had been in amateur theatricals as a child. I changed it to "little". -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Recordings: "The 1982 Brent Walker video production is considered one of the worst of the Brent Walker series." The reader will wonder what the Brent Walker series is.

There are very few professional videos of G&S. The first series of professional videos was by Brent Walker productions that was shown on TV both in the U.S. and UK. I made a slight change. Does that fix the problem for you? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I know what it is, but my point is the reader might not.

I clarified that it is a production company that did a G&S TV series. I'll also add an explanatory footnote. Let me know if that is clear enough now, or what you think ought to be changed. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Adaptations: I think this section is very likely to be questioned in FAC as possible trivia. I think it is borderline. It would help if it could be rewritten as text rather than bulleted entries, especially since some of the entries are mentioned in the cultural impact section. Any way you can merge the rest of it in there, or elsewhere in the article?

Let me think about this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)\

Done now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit troubled that the subsequent production section is so far away (and after!) the section on reception of revivals. I don't think a merge is feasible because you don't, and likely can't reasonably get reviews for all the productions mentioned. I'm not sure what the answer is there.

It used to be right after reception, but the GA reviewer insisted on moving the cultural impact section up higher. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Everyone's a critic.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It's all together now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

"He is an Englishman" is referred to as "For he is an Englishman" in the cultural section.

OK, changed it to the former. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The Cultural Impact section comes off as a bit trivial as well, I fear, at least after the opening paragraph. It seems a bit of a catalogue of references to Pinafore. A bit surprised that nowhere in the article are the two G&S references to Pinafore mentioned.

The two self-references are in a footnote, and I happen to think that they are uber-trivial. The fact that G&S made an in-joke is not, IMO, a "cultural impact". The GA reviewer thought that the cultural impact section was the most important part of the article and kept insisting that I move it higher. I agree that this will be a topic of discussion at the FAC, and I'm content to leave it til then. I will note that these references to Pinafore are all very substantial references, in which an entire song is sung, or a major parody is made of the show in a famous cultural work, not just passing references in cultural works that you never heard of. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Let's see how it goes at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: the 2 self-references, feel free to raise the issue at FAC as to whether the information in the footnote should come out into the text, where they would be more prominent. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyhow, that's all I have. I'll reread it when I get a chance. Looking forward to seeing it at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for your time. As I have said, this is an important article for the G&S project, and I want to get it right. There will be people with widely divergent opinions, and, as the Captain says, I will "do my best to satisfy you all". -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Too many quotes, indeed.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.

What makes the following reliable sources?

• http://www.dgillan.screaming.net/stage/th-frames.html?http&&&www.dgillan.screaming.net/stage/th-opcom.html

This website is merely reprinting a contemporary news report from The Theatre. I have also cited the website for statistics on longest-running plays in London and New York prior to 1920, and the website in this case is merely compiling data from a list in "Who's Who in the Theatre", Tenth Edition (Pitman, 1947). -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but what makes it reliable for the reprint? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I could simply remove the citation, and leave the naked citation to the 130-year-old article, but how is that better than *also* providing a cite to a convenient on-line copy? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I also added a citation to Who's Who in the Theatre, Fourteenth edition, ed. Freda Gaye, p. 1530, which confirms the length of the run of the shows noted by Gillan. Gillan is the author of the book Of Boars and Bantams, A Pictorial History of Bradford City AFC. His website is a non-profit informational website. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.culturevulture.net/Welcome.htm

Culture Vulture is an arts review website established in 1998. Its publisher and editor is Michael Wade Simpson, of Santa Fe, New Mexico. He holds a BA in Journalism from the University of Southern California. He is a published author and was a teaching fellow at Smith College, where he received his MFA in choreography. While living in the Bay Area for 15 years, he wrote about dance for the San Francisco Chronicle and other periodicals. In 2005, he was a NEA Fellow at the Dance Critics Institute, American Dance Festival. For culturevulture.net, he reviews dance, theatre and film. The website also publishes the reviews of critics, writers and academics listed here. The article cited is a 2005 review of a performance by NYGASP at Wolf Trap. In any case, the cite is used merely as one of three for the proposition that Pinafore is still popular. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.edwardsamuels.com/illustratedstory/index.htm (current ref 67 ... it needs publisher and author information also)

I deleted this one as unnecessary. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=963540 (current ref 68 it needs publisher and author infromation also)

This is an article by a lawyer from a major lawfirm published in a law review article at a major law school on the legal subject of copyrighting theatrical properties. Thanks for pointing out the deficiency of the referencing, which I have now corrected. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~melbear/potted4.htm (needs publisher information if it stays also)

I added publisher information. Moratti edits and publishes the Gilbert and Sullivan Down Under website. Moratti managed Truetone Records in New Zealand, for twenty one years. He now runs the classical department of Marbecks - the largest classical record store in New Zealand.[1]. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I have replaced the cite with a cite to the original Carroll article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.musicals101.com/g&scanon.htm

This is the best musical theatre history website in the world, edited by author, teacher and commentator John Kenrick (theatre writer). See his wikipedia bio for information about the website. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• https://web.archive.org/web/20061013163848/http://www.mugss.org/society/gands/culture/

This compilation of popular culture references in G&S is unique on the internet. We are using it only to support the proposition that there are a lot of them besides those examples specifically listed and referenced below the sentence. I could just delete the ref as unnecessary, but why lose the information? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I've replaced the ref with a ref to Bradley's 2005 book. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.thejudyroom.com/index.html

This extensive Judy Garland website and discography is edited by Scott Brogan and Eric Hemphill. See this about Brogan, mentioning Hemphill. Brogan is a member of the research committee for the San Francisco Silent Film Festival and also a designer of the official Liza Minelli website. He has published essays on the silent films of Douglas Fairbanks, Lillian Gish, Marion Davies, and William Haines. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.chud.com/articles/articles/7207/1/DVD-REVIEW-ANIMANIACS---VOLUME-ONE/Page1.html

This entertainment website features reviews, interviews, articles, news and editorial content about the entertainment industry. It has an editorial staff (see [2]) and has a large archive of reviews, such as the one cited. It is cited merely for its plot summary of the Animaniacs episode. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You can cite the episode itself, I would think. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you prefer a citation to this?: http://www.bcdb.com/cartoon/14720-HMS_Yakko.html -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.planet-familyguy.com/pfg/?s=episodes&id=32

This is a moderated site with news about the show "Family Guy" and has an archival episode guide,. See this. The cite is used only for the archival episode summary. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I added this cite: S. Callaghan, “The Thin White Line.” Family Guy: The Official Episode Guide Seasons 1–3. New York: HarperCollins, 2005. pp. 128–31. Since it is to a book, however, shouldn't we retain the online cite? Would you rather cite to this?: http://familyguy.wikia.com/wiki/I%27m_The_Greatest_Captain -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The wikia site isn't going to be reliable. The book is a better source. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Current ref 75 needs publisher information

Done (now ref 78) -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Current ref 155 needs publisher information

Done (now ref 158) -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• http://diamond.boisestate.edu/gas/pinafore/dick_deadeye_movie deadlinks

Replaced dead link with a link to Time Out Film Guide. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 14:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You need to satisfy WP:SPS for most of these. Some of these I'd leave out for other FAC reviewers to decide for themselves, but the important bits are satisfying SPS, which the Kendricks' site probably does, but the others are more borderline. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Maria

Some comments/suggestions regarding the prose throughout:

• and ran for 571 performances, the second-longest run of any musical theatre piece up to that time. Some transition is needed here -- "making it the second-longest run"?

Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• The opera's gentle satire reprises and builds on a theme introduced in Gilbert and Sullivan's previous opera, The Sorcerer, love between members of different social classes, and lampoons British class distinctions in general. Awkward; "love between members of different social classes" is completely lost here. How about something like "builds on the theme of love between members of different social classes, something that was introduced in Gilbert and Sullivan's previous..." etc. The lampooning can be slightly expanded and made into its own sentence.

Deleted reference to Sorcerer, which was unnecessary in the Lead. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Pinafore's extraordinary popularity in Britain, America and elsewhere... sentences prior to this use the serial comma; please make sure that it's consistent throughout.

Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• There are quite a few commas in the first paragraph of the "Background" section; although used correctly, it makes for choppy reading. Perhaps go through and consider rewording some of the sentences for easier flow; for example, This next opera was The Sorcerer, which opened in November 1877, and it too was successful, running for 178 performances. could be rewritten as "Named/Titled The Sorcerer, this next opera opened in November 1877 and too was successful, running for 178 performances."

Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Carte agreed on terms for a new opera with his Comedy-Opera Company partners, and Gilbert began work on a new opera, H.M.S. Pinafore, before the end of 1877. "new opera" is used twice in this sentence. Could the second one just be dropped?

Good idea. Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

*This was far from standard procedure in Victorian drama, where naturalism was still a relatively new concept... you might want to link Naturalism (theatre) for context.

I already linked this twice above. Link a third time? -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Doh, I missed it linked with "naturalness". Strike that. María (habla conmigo) 18:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Pinafore opened on 25 May 1878 at the Opera Comique. Is this needed at the end of "Background"? It's already mentioned in the very first sentence of "Original production".

I think it finishes off the section nicely, and we don't meet it again for a long time. Let's see if others feel the same way at FAC. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. María (habla conmigo) 18:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• The opera also resumed touring in April, with two touring companies crisscrossing... second use of "touring" is superfluous.

Good idea. Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Gilbert was away, and Sullivan was recovering from an operation to crush kidney stones. Crush? Hrm?

That is what the source says. I don't know what the medical procedure was in those days, but Stedman was a careful researcher, so I'm reluctant to change her description. She didn't say "remove".... What would you say? -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I do think "remove", but I also have no idea how they treated kidney stones during that time. I took "crush" to be overly dramatic (as to "CRUSH one's enemy") rather than in any literal sense, but if the word is directly from the source, perhaps it should be in quotes? María (habla conmigo) 18:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Gilbert, Sullivan and Carte brought law suits in the U.S. and tried for many years... "lawsuits" is one word, isn't it?

Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• François Cellier, now Carte's music director in London, adapted the score for children's voices. The "now" here is misleading; "then"?

Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• The Era also lavishly praised Emma Howson. It might be useful to repeat what part Howson played, just to refresh our memory. I had to scroll up to find it.

Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Another commentator suggests, "The focus [in 1878] was on mirth and silliness..." When was this comment made? That it's described with the present tense seems somewhat disjointed.

I put whole paragraph in past tense. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

See Awadawit comment below. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Gilbert also pokes at party politics, implying that when Sir Joseph "always voted at [his] party's call", he lost his sacrificed his personal integrity. The last part is jumbled, I think.

Oops! Thanks, fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• As of 2005, Ian Bradley counted seventeen recordings of the opera available on CD. The "as of" bothers me somewhat; "Ian Bradley counted seventeen CD recordings of the opera available in 2005"?

Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• The reduced-size acting cast also serve as the orchestra for the singing roles, and the music is infused with swing rhythms (Travis and Doyle were the team responsible for the actor-orchestra staging of the 2006 Broadway revival of Sweeney Todd) Is the Sweeney Todd mention truly notable? If it is, then it should be reworked a bit here; it doesn't fit with the rest of the sentence.

I'm happy to take it out, since it didn't strike you as helpful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Other than these concerns, I think the article is in fairly good shape. All formatting and MOS technicalities seem to be correct. As for section ordering, I did find it strange that "Subsequent productions" is displaced from the sections about previous productions, including the original one, but it doesn't bother me too much. I'm used to seeing "Adaptations" and "Cultural impact" as the last sections in a film or book article, perhaps. I didn't check out the individual images, but from a brief glance they seem all right, as well. Best of luck! María (habla conmigo) 15:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy to move the subsequent productions section up. The GA reviewer was adamant that the Cultural impact section was very important and must be moved up. Please advise further. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I believe such sections typically border on WP:TRIVIA, so perhaps I don't put as much stock in them as some might. They also tend to be the most popular sections in articles. I read the concerns during the GA review, and while I agree that it makes sense to have those large tables at the end of the article so as not to turn off readers, I stick by my previous comment; not too important to me in the long run, but it does seem against the norm. Perhaps it's another thing that has to be hashed out at FAC. María (habla conmigo) 18:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the section as you suggest. Looks good? I think the productions table needs to be together with the productions section, right? --

Definitely; I think it's much improved, and the "Historical casting" section caps it off nicely. María (habla conmigo) 20:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Awadewit comments (finally)

• Image review

• File:Pinafore Drawing.jpg - This image has no publication information,

It's from The Illustrated London News, a newspaper that D. H. Friston worked for. It was published on 8 June 1878, along with a review of the show. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I have now added the publication information to the image page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• File:A British Tar.jpg - It is best to include full publication information for The Bab Ballads.

OK, I added the publication information to the image file (London: Macmillan and Co). -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• File:Pinaforeplaybill.jpg - The source for this image is a little unclear. Can we give a little more information?

This is a theatre poster from the Opera Comique during the original run of Pinafore in London in 1878. I have clarified the caption. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Source review

• Prestige, Colin. "D'Oyly Carte and the Pirates", a paper presented at the International Conference of G&S held at the University of Kansas, May 1970 - Generally, I would not cite from academic paper presented at conferences, as they undergo no review of any kind.

Colin Prestige’s credentials as an authority on the subject: he was Chairman of the parent branch of the international Gilbert and Sullivan Society [from 1959] and an editor of The Gilbert and Sullivan Journal [from 1961 to 1981 (and an assistant editor of the Journal before that, having joined the editorial board in 1959, per obituary mentioned below)]. He resigned the Chair in January 1965 soon after being appointed a Trustee of the D'Oyly Carte Opera Trust. See The Gilbert and Sullivan Journal, January 1965, pp. 259 and 268; The Times, 17 November 1995 and 13 July 1995. He was the longest-serving trustee. See Oh Joy, Oh Rapture!, p. 104 by Ian Bradley. Prestige has been quoted as an authority in Academic journals: Fischler, Alan. "Guano and Poetry: Payment for Playwriting in Victorian England", Modern Language Quarterly - Volume 62, Number 1, March 2001, pp. 43-52; Kleinhans, Charles. Victorian Studies, Vol. 17, No. 1, "The Victorian Child" (Sep., 1973), pp. 117-118, Indiana University Press. In published books Prestige is cited as an authority on, e.g., p. 614 of Ian Bradley's The Complete Annotated Gilbert and Sullivan and p. 1 of Jane W. Stedman's W. S. Gilbert: A Classic Victorian and His Theatre, Oxford University Press, 1996. Hope this helps dispel any doubt on this subject. Tim riley (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

According to Cannon, John. Obituary: Colin Prestige, Gilbert and Sullivan News, Vol.III, No.9 Autumn/Winter 2003, he died on 12 Nov. 2003 at age 76. He contributed over 100 articles and reviews, including articles on the original American productions of the G&S operas, to The Gilbert and Sullivan Journal. He also administered the subsisting Gilbert copyrights (mostly the Nancy McIntosh bequest, including unpublished materials) and the G&S royalties and copyrights on behalf of the Royal Theatrical Fund, of which he was a Director, until his death. He was also an important collector who owned several major Sullivan manuscripts, left to Oriel College, Oxford, when he died. He established The Friends of D'Oyly Carte in 1981. He is acknowledged in the seminal book on Operetta by Richard Traubner. Here is the cover of the conference booklet containing the paper cited to in the Pinafore article, which people are still trading: http://www.arcadee.freeserve.co.uk/bk031.htm This dealer thinks it is worth 36 pounds. Prestige was was a Partner of the lawfirm Lawrence Graham in London and a member of the City of Westminster and Holborn Law Society. He served on the Council of the Selden Society.http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/registeredcharities/ScannedAccounts/Ends36%5C0000211536_AC_20041231_E_C.pdf He was a founding member of the Sherlock Holmes Society: http://www.bakerstreetjournal.com/itemsforsale/christmasannuals.html and an editor of the Sherlock Homes Journal. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not who he is, but the fact that this is a conference paper. There is a joke in my department, for example, that the reason you have to write your PhD qualifying exam in five hours locked in a room is so that you are prepared to write a conference paper on a plane. The fact is that many conference papers are just thrown together. It is actually unfortunately true that the more highly esteemed someone is, the less time they put into their paper (they no longer have to prove themselves to the profession). None of these things are universally true, of course, but conference papers are unreliable enough that I would not cite them. Awadewit (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I found out the full cite and fixed the cite. This paper was published by the University of Kansas as part of an edited volume of the most authoritative papers given at the conference. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Conference proceedings are not something I would use, if at all possible. Again, they are not fact-checked or peer-reviewed. As RS says, "As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication" - there are no people checking these things for conference proceedings. If anything was important in the conference papers, the scholars would have written them up and published them in peer-reviewed publications. Not everything produced by academics is reliable (under Wikipedia's rules) and I feel that this is one of those areas we need to be careful about. Conferences are notorious for their rather speculative papers. Awadewit (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I am rather perplexed by Awadewit's reasoning. This is not a conference paper, but a published book by the University of Kansas containing papers, the original versions of which were given at a conference. On what basis would this be deemed less reliable than the contents of any other book? Does Awadewit actually believe that the other books appearing on the article's list of sources went through a full peer review and fact check? On what basis does Awadewit believe that? An awful lot of publishers print whatever is submitted to them. In most cases one does not know for sure, but if one had to make a judgment, a publication that came out of a university press would jump right to the top of the reliability list, exactly the opposite of where Awadewit is putting it. Marc Shepherd (talk) 12:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Conference proceedings go through a different publication process than books. The papers are accepted before they are ever read/heard and usually there is very little oversight of the production. Conference paper collections are just much less reliable than collections of essays or full-length books. I'm not claiming that all of the other books went through rigorous checking (they did go through some, though), but conference proceedings are rather notorious for shoddy work. If this material hasn't been published again since the 1970s, I would be extremely suspicious of it. Academics don't publish something in a conference proceeding and call it good (it doesn't count for anything published there) - they need it to be published in a journal or a book. If you cannot find this material published in a journal or a book since 1970, I would start to worry. Awadewit (talk) 03:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This paper is the product of decades of research on the early American productions of G&S. No one else had access to the materials that Prestige had collected over these decades. It was certainly not thrown together - there have not been many G&S conferences in history, and this conference was a very big deal. The paper contains unique research that has not been superseded, and it is referred to by the G&S scholarship community; for example, it is cited here. It was edited by James Helyar, then head of the Kenneth Spencer Research Library at the University of Kansas, who also edited other Gilbert and Sullivan works (see here. He is the curator of this exhibition. Also, the papers in this book were not accepted before the conference, as suggested above, but were published a year later in book form after consideration and editing by Helyar for the University of Kansas Press. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your evidence is not convincing. The book is cited in a paper published by an MD on the G&S website? That's it? Also, the link to the bibliography does not say that the papers were selected after the conference, etc. In no way does it indicate that this conference proceeding was put together in a way that was different from any other. The fact that the book was published a year later means nothing - it takes at least a year to publish anything. In fact, such a short amount of time indicates that very little editing of the papers was done at all (I just edited a journal issue, which took two years). The fact that the collection was edited also does not mean that the papers were selected later - the editor could easily have been selected ahead of time (this happens all of the time). As I've said before, if the scholarship presented in these papers was so groundbreaking, it will have been published elsewhere. Is this information not available elsewhere? Awadewit (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

150 productions: Besides the Allen cite and the Prestige cite, there is this and this. Kanthor, the MD, is the foremost G&S collector in America and is responsible for this exhibition at the University of Rochester. G&S scholarship is not driven by academics (there are none who focus on G&S: the late Jane Stedman focused on Gilbert, and a couple of musicologists focus on Sullivan: See David Russell Hulme) but by collectors and music score publishers. No book has ever been written that focuses on analyzing Pinafore (unless you want to count Gilbert's storybook for children), and none have been written about the history of Pinafore. If you look at our reference list, you'll see that the best you can find is a chapter in a biography about G and/or S. Therefore, a paper like Prestige's that is based on in-depth, meticulous research, is rare in the field. I don't expect that we are going to get any further in this discussion here. Let's renew the discussion at FAC. Shoemaker has been ill, and I think he will be entertaining family for a few weeks, so I may wait to nominate it until he is free. In any case, I am still hoping for his help on the image issues above. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm still not getting it. What we have here is a book published by the University of Kansas. Awadewit claims to know (I don't see how) that the process by which the book was created was unreliable. Meanwhile, the article cites plenty of other books, and the process by which they were created is totally unknown. Maybe in some other field papers that began as conference proceedings are unreliable. But that claim is itself unsubstantiated. Maybe we need a Wikipedia rule that no book is reliable until its editorial process has gone through a full audit. But until that happens, this book is presumptively reliable until some reason (other than "I don't trust conferences") can be given. Marc Shepherd (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

ETA: Let me add that I am grateful that Awadewit has taken the time to supply such helpful and detailed comments. In this particular instance I think he's way off base, but he has also supplied a ton of valuable ideas. Marc Shepherd (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the reason I know how conference proceedings are produced is because I am an academic in the humanities. Awadewit (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Why is this site reliable? I saw your explanation of this one above, but I'm unconvinced. You are quoting Lewis Carroll from this website. Why not just track down the Carroll quote? The reader has no context for this Carroll quote on this website.

OK, I replaced it with a cite to the original Carroll article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 02:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Why is this site reliable? (There are several posts from this archive.)

The G&S Archive, established 1993, is the most complete G&S website in the world. It has a separate homepage for each Savoy opera with subpages for librettos, scores, articles, books and other analysis, as well as information on other Savoy pieces, Sullivan and Gilbert themselves, early British musical theatre, performer biography information, information about the D'Oyly Carte opera company and family and information on the numerous other works of both W.S. Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan. The curator is Paul Howarth, a Sullivan expert, and its list of contributors is a virtual who's who of G&S and theatre experts and scholars throughout the world, including authors, editors and musicologists such as Kurt Gänzl, Andrew Crowther, Marc Shepherd, Hal Kanthor, Michael Walters, David Stone and Quade Winter. Its webmaster and technical advisor is Alex Feldman, a professor in the mathematics and computer science department at Boise State University, the host of the site. This site has been accepted as a reference in all of our other FAs and GAs. The New York Times featured it in 1998. Drake University library calls the G&S Archive "the primary international Web site for the operas and other works of W. S. Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan, and for other light operas.... The site has been ably managed by two curators, first Jim Farron (now deceased) and more recently Paul Howarth, both having extensive credentials with the G&S community". Author Ian Bradley cites to it repeatedly in his 2005 book Oh Joy! Oh Rapture! The Enduring Phenomenon of Gilbert and Sullivan. Theatre historian John Kenrick says: "Thank heaven for this site! ...a researcher's treasure trove!" It is listed at the Librarians' Internet Index and as a resource by The Pierpont Morgan Library, HKU Libraries, Intute and Directory Aviva. In his own Gilbert website, Crowther calls the G&S Archive "An essential link... the internet resource on Gilbert and Sullivan". Marc Shepherd, at the G&S Discography, calls the Archive "the grand-daddy of all G&S websites". Google shows over 7,000 references to "Gilbert and Sullivan Archive". Scholacantorum.org calls it "The Web's major Gilbert & Sullivan resource". Here is one that calls the Archive "thorough and enjoyable". This one calls it "an impressive resource". This one calls it "a great place".

Also, the website of the Gilbert and Sullivan Society (i.e. the parent society in London, with international affiliates all over the globe) has a link to the G&S Archive, which is about as authoritative an endorsement as one could imagine. Tim riley (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Why is this site reliable?

• Why is this site reliable? I see your response to Ealdgyth above, but I don't think we should use unreliable sources for any reason.

I've replaced the ref with a ref to Bradley's 2005 book. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Why is this site reliable?

This entertainment website features reviews, interviews, articles, news and editorial content about the entertainment industry. It has an editorial staff (see [3]) and has a large archive of reviews, such as the one cited. We cite it merely for its plot summary of the Animaniacs episode. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

But look at the descriptions of their writers, such as this one. The site does not look particularly professional. For a plot summary, generally we don't even need a citation, right? The plot summary of the entire opera has no citations, for example. Awadewit (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that I can just remove the cite altogether, and the wikilink is adequate by itself? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I have replaced the cite with a cite to http://www.bcdb.com/cartoon_synopsis/14720-HMS_Yakko.html The Big Cartoon Database, which is a well-regarded website. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, those links don't prove the cite reliable. I don't where we are in relation to citing plot summaries. I was under the impression that you could just cite the original Animaniacs episode itself (the DVD, for example). Awadewit (talk) 03:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm still not understanding you. Are you saying that you think I should cite Amazon.com? Here is the video: http://video.aol.com/video-detail/animaniacs-hms-yakko/3059612219 -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said, you could cite the original episode. One way to do this is to obtain the DVDs themselves (from the library, for example); however, you may be able to obtain enough information about the episode from Warner Bros. online. You can see how Bart Simpson cites episodes, for example. Awadewit (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah! OK. I've done it the way the Animaniacs article cites them. This should do it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• The "References" section is inconsistently formatted. It needs to use all templates or no templates, for example and those need to be formatted consistently. Please look over this.

I hate cite templates, but nearly all had them so I added them. Checked the formatting and I think it's OK now. Let me know if you see any further problems. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Some of the books have publication location and some do not. Some of the ISBNs have hyphens and some do not. Awadewit (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, fixed. Why did you remove publisher info from the two journal articles? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Because there is no common style of citation (MLA, Chicago, etc.) includes them. Awadewit (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Article review

• Pinafore opened on 25 May 1878 at the Opera Comique - This little paragraph feels marooned rather than dramatic.

OK, Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• The gentlemanly and popular Captain greets his "gallant crew" and compliments them on their politeness, saying that he returns the favour by never ("well, hardly ever") using bad language, such as "a big, big D." - damn? devil? Perhaps this should be made explicit?

It's not clarified in the actual work until the ending. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you put it in a footnote? (Perhaps it was clear to the audience at the time.) Awadewit (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It meant Damn. I added a footnote as requested, although Benford thought that it was so obvious that he did not even define it in his very through G&S lexicon. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Ralph summons his shipmates (Sir Joseph's female relatives also arrive) and tells them that he is bent on suicide. - This was very surprising in the plot summary. How serious is it in the play itself?

He sings: My friends, my leave of life I'm taking, for ah! my faithful heart she's breaking. When I am gone, please tell the maid that as I died I loved her well. Be warned, my messmates all who love in rank above you: For Josephine I die." He is about to blow his brains out when she appears and sings "Ah! Stay your hand, I love you!" It's a parody satire of grand opera, of course. As Anna Russell said of the Ring: "In Opera, you can do ANYTHING, so long as you sing it." What changes would you suggest? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we just say it is a parody, then? Awadewit (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I explained this very well: It's not a self-conscious parody, it's satire. The whole show is a satire of various things, opera being one. However, within the context of the show, Ralph is in earnest. The audience should be concerned that Ralph will kill himself. The comic effect of the satire in these shows, as Gilbert said (see his bio article), depends on them being played absolutely in earnest. I've added a little information at the end of the Background section to try to explain this to the reader, which may help prepare the reader for the synopsis. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll copyedit the plot summary. I don't think we're doing this quite as well as we could. [Shoemaker]

I just think we need to make it clear that this is not a moment of tragedy, if you see what I mean. Awadewit (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's take a step back. This is a moment of drama, at least in an operatic context. Lots of comedies have dramatic moments. Just because it is a comedy doesn't mean that it is not serious in its context. It is not a tragedy because Josephine stops Ralph from pulling the trigger. Ralph says he is going to kill himself, and the audience should be concerned that he will do so. The fact that the chourus repeats what he says is, in itself, a satire of the absurdity of grand opera in general, but this is, IMO, the right way to write an opera synopsis. This plot summary has been copyedited by Finetooth, Brianbolton (who called it "superlative"), Maria and others. Shoe, if you can improve it, by all means do so, but I think it is clear enough on this point, and Awadewit can bring it up again at FAC if she still thinks it is not clear. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I was surprised when I read it, that is all. I thought to myself "Why is this happening?" "Is this serious or what?" If you think it is clear enough, that is fine. Awadewit (talk) 03:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Caption: Illustration by D. H. Friston, 1878 - Illustration of what?

I specified that it's a scene from Act II. It illustrates the moment when Ralph confesses to Sir Joseph that he loves Josephine, and Josephine cries, "Darling!" -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we say that? Awadewit (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, sorry, that wasn't exactly right. It looks like the illustrator simply intended to show all the characters present onstage doing *something* that they each do in Act II. In fact, it can't actually be any exact moment, because the Captain is shown hiding under his boatcloak, but in the show, by the time Sir Joseph comes on stage, the Captain has thrown off the boatcloak; and by the time Ralph and Josephine disclose their love to Sir J, the Captain has left the stage. So, I've changed the caption accordingly. I have noticed that many of these contemporary illustrations were not intending to illustrate any particular scene but merely to evoke various ideas from the show, as a complement to the accompanying reviews. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Soon, however, the piece suffered from weak ticket sales, generally ascribed to a heat wave that summer that made the Opera Comique particularly uncomfortable.[33][34] Historian Michael Ainger questions this explanation, at least in part, stating that the heat waves in the summer of 1878 were short and transient.[35] Richard D'Oyly Carte's four producing partners of the Comedy-Opera Company lost confidence in the opera's viability and posted closing notices.[36][37] Carte publicised the piece by presenting a matinee concert performance on 6 July 1878 at the large Crystal Palace.[38] By mid-August, Sullivan wrote to his mother that cooler weather was good for the show - I think this material needs to be reorganized to place all of the weather-related information together.

OK, done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• all-negro and Catholic productions - The "all-negro" makes me a little nervous. Would "all-black" be better?

OK, I'm making that change right now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• references to the opera were common in advertising and elsewhere - Do we need the "elsewhere" since it is so vague?

Thanks. I made it "advertising, news and other media". -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• I think that the article bogs down a bit in the "Subsequent productions" section, which becomes a bit prose listy.

Fixed, I think. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is better, although I think three paragraphs would be even better. (I know that would feel horrific to you.) Awadewit (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Three paragraphs it is. Looks better? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Awadewit (talk) 03:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• In the "Initial critical reception" section, can any of the newspaper titles not currently linked be redlinked?

I found links for the Daily News and The Standard. There is a stub for The Musical Times. There is no article for The Globe which, in 1921, merged with Pall Mall Gazette. As for these other defunct papers and magazines, I have no intention of writing articles about them myself, although I do come across references to The Era quite a bit. Shoe, what do you think? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to make article, just to redlink. Awadewit (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, but WP:REDLINK says to create red links to articles that "you intend to create, technical terms that deserve more treatment than just a dictionary definition, or topics which should obviously have articles." I don't intend to create these, and they don't strike me as topics that should obviously have articles, because they are defunct and rather obscure now. Shoemaker, which of these, if any, should have an article? The Era? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I'll throw together a stub if it becomes an issue. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I have redlinked The Era. Is that OK now? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Awadewit (talk) 03:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• I would suggest that only one large quote be used in the "Initial critical reception" section. There are already a lot of quotes in the section.

OK, done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• The "Reception of revivals" section hardly seems comprehensive - what about the revivals throughout the 20th century?

I moved the H. L. Mencken quote here. There have been thousands of productions throughout the 20th century and 21st century and also a contemporary review and Bradley's book both saying that Pinafore has remained popular. It seems to me that this covers it. If not, where would you draw the line on how many/what sort of newspaper reviews to include? There are, of course, a nearly unlimited number of them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That is a good place for the Mencken quote, but I'm wondering why these early revivals get so much more space than later revivals. Are there any later revivals that are particularly important? I would highlight important revivals. Awadewit (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a good question. None of the subsequent revivals were much more important than any others, except to the extent discussed in the Subsequent productions section. I'll investigate further and see if I can come up with any particularly prominent productions and then get reviews for them. Shoe, comments welcome. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Glyndbourne, maybe? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The early revivals were supervised by Gilbert personally. After Gilbert's death in 1911, the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company held the copyright for 50 years longer. They were the *exclusive* professional G&S company in the UK, except for Australia, where they licensed J. C. Williamson. Their productions followed Gilbert's prompt books, and they insisted that all amateur productions follow the prompt books. Even where the copyrights were not enforceable, like the U.S., the DOC style was usually closely followed; so productions up to 1961 were basically copies of the Gilbert's productions, and reviews only say whether the cast was good or complain about the "old-fashioned" production. After 1961, there have been more innovative productions as well as "traditional" productions, but no company has been dominant or considerably more important than the others. I'll continue to think about this and look into some reviews, unless Shoemaker beats me to it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This is an extremely helpful summary. I wonder if this information could be foregrounded more in the article itself? Perhaps put at the beginning of the "Subsequent productions" section or something? Awadewit (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I have gone through some sources looking for interesting reviews and have added some information. I've tried to give a sense of the reception of various professional productions through the 20th century and into this century and of the scope of the productions. Please take a look and also let me know if any sentences should instead go in the "subsequent productions" section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Biographer Jane Stedman wrote that Pinafore is "satirically far more complex" than The Sorcerer, noting that Gilbert used several ideas and themes from his Bab Ballads, including the idea of gentlemanly behaviour of a captain towards his crew from "Captain Reece" (1868) and the exchange of ranks due to exchange at birth from "General John" (1867). - This sentence is rather long - I would suggest breaking it up.

OK, done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• In the "Analysis" section, shouldn't the opera be described in the literary present rather than the past tense?

I made some changes along these lines. Can you suggest how to change the remaining past-tense refs to old sources into "literary present"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Generally, the literary present applies to old sources as well. For example, one says "H.M.S. Pinafore explores class themes" because it still does (even though it was written in the 19th century) - this applies to analysis as well as the original text (the analysis still holds, for example). Exceptions to this are when when one identifies time or events in relation to the work. For example, "In the 1870s, Gilbert and Sullivan wrote H.M.S. Pinafore". Does this help clarify things? Awadewit (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Another subject of literary humour in the story is the apparent age difference between Ralph and the Captain - Can we find a better way to start this paragraph than "another" (which is a weak transition word)?

Good idea. Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Another subject of literary humour in the story is the apparent age difference between Ralph and the Captain, even though they were babies nursed together, which parodies the variable age of Thaddeus in The Bohemian Girl - This sentence is a bit of a run-on.

Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Another subject of literary humour in the story is the apparent age difference between Ralph and the Captain, even though they were babies nursed together, which parodies the variable age of Thaddeus in The Bohemian Girl.[28] A theme that pervades the opera is the treatment of love across different social ranks. - These sentences don't flow into each together very well.

Fixed by Re-assigning first sentence to prev. paragraph. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• I feel like "Songs and musical analysis" doesn't actually present a detailed musical analysis. I was wondering about the structure of the opera, the interplay between the various voices, the keys of the pieces, etc. Are there any other details that could be added on this front?

I'm going to pass this one back to Ssilvers, as the idea of trying to find that while I'm this ill makes me want to have a long lie-down. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've checked all the major sources, including Francois Cellier's book, and it doesn't appear that there is a reliable source with a good discussion of this type of information. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• It is awkward to begin the "Adaptations" section with the Picture Book and then move into a general statement. Can you begin with a general statement and then mention the Picture Book?

OK, done.

I've tried to integrate everything a bit better. Awadewit (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Pinafore's popularity also led to musical theatre adaptations of the piece described above and other musicals that parody or pastiche Pinafore - "Pastiche" can't be a verb.

• Likewise, songs from Pinafore have been widely parodied or pastiched in films, on television and in a variety of other media. - "Pastiche" can't be a verb.

Good point. Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point? The Oxford English Dictionary lists "pastiche" as a verb: "1. trans. To copy the style of; to imitate in a pastiche." Tim riley (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Should I put it back, or is it better/as good the way it is now? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The current version says what it says with perfect clarity. I was merely correcting a misunderstanding - verbum sat. Tim riley (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

In the online Merriam-Webster's dictionary I checked, it said "pastiche" can only be a noun. Actually, in every online dictionary I checked, it said the word can only be a noun. I'm not sure we should use the word in this way if it is such a rare usage that one has to have access to the OED to find this usage. Users should be able to look up words on the internet and find the usages we are employing. Awadewit (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, it's fixed now to your satisfaction, right? Can you line through the comment if you are satisfied? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Everything after the first paragraph of the "Culture impact" section just seems like an assorted trivia list to me. It is hard to read.

It's hard to make these sorts of things particularly coherent, by their nature, unfortunately. Nonetheless, it's how a lot of people know the opera... Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I just feel that the article degenerates a bit with this list, but I see your point. Perhaps we could reduce a bit? Awadewit (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I've just gone through it again. Every single reference in it involves a very substantial reference (e.g., an entire song from Pinafore is sung) to a major, popular media reference. This section has been reduced already from a much larger number of references in the linked article [Cultural influence of Gilbert and Sullivan]. I tried to improve the prose a little more, but any further suggestions are welcome. Other commentators at GA and elsewhere have found this section to be important and have advocated moving it higher up in the article, but I resisted this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

One thing to note about the film and television references is that they suffer from recentism. Was Pinafore really only referenced beginning after 1963 and did it make a dramatic upsurge in the last few decades? I find that hard to believe. Awadewit (talk) 03:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

In fact, yes. Songs from Pinafore were not used in films and television until at least the 1960s. Perhaps they were waiting for the copyrights to expire. For films, I think that after "Chariots of Fire", G&S was seen as a good "period" identifier. On TV, it seems the adult animated series in particular have seized on it in recent decades as grist for satire. See: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0837956/ and you'll see that the only Sullivan songs prominently used before that were really Onward Christian Soldiers and Hail, hail the gang's all here. See also http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0318275/ HOWEVER, with respect to the second paragraph of the section, I added some dates to show that Pinafore has had a strong cultural impact throughout its history. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting - I wonder if you could find a reference about the copyright? Awadewit (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Working on this - so sorry this has taken me so long! Awadewit (talk) 03:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I will finish up the review tomorrow. The article is looking good! Awadewit (talk) 02:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your excellent comments and edits to the article. We will, consider all your comments carefully and look forward to the rest! Also, I've left you a few follow-up questions above. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I've posted the rest. I will now start responding! Awadewit (talk) 01:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

A few final comments from Brianboulton

• The "Prestige" issue: I don't know whether Awadewit's caution over the use of this source is justified or not. I tend to respect what she says because I have found (dammit) that she is usually right about such things. In this case, in all honsety, the issue doesn't seem worth a fight. A single sentence is cited to the Prestige source: "Approximately 150 unauthorised productions of Pinafore sprang up in the United States in 1878 and 1879, without paying royalties to the authors." There are two other citations for this sentence, and I could offer another - my father's old copy of Leslie Baily's 1952 The Gilbert and Sullivan Book says much the same thing (publisher info. on request). So whether Prestige stays or not seems to be of no real consequence.

Outstanding image issues

• File:Pinafore Drawing.jpg I understand that the newspaper's name and date is being sought.

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• File:A British Tar.jpg The name and location of the publisher of the 1906 edition of the Bab Ballads needs to be given

? It is given, London: Macmillan and Co Please look at the file summary. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have had blinkers on. Perhaps, however, the file description should include the information that "Bab", the artist, is W.S. Gilbert, and should give his dates, i.e. 1836–1911?

Good idea. Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• File:Pinaforeplaybill.jpg We ought to know where this image was uploaded from. You could try asking the uploader.

It was uploaded from here: https://www.gsarchive.net/pinafore/web_opera/entracte.html I have now added the url to the file summary. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Cultural impact: I'm not a particular fan of these sections. In this case I see there is a main article on the cultural impact of G&S, which has a section "Other references to songs in HMS Pinafore", so my preferred choice would be to transfer as much information as possible to there. I don't suppose you want to do that - but I wonder at the necessity of referring to two Sherman songs. I can live with the section as it is, but certainly wouldn't want to see it expanded or given greater prominence.

I have no intention of expanding it, and I just shortened it a bit by moving the second Sherman song out of the text. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Final final comment: This article has had a huge amount of peer review comment. There comes a point where further comment can be counter-productive, reopening matters once considered resolved. I'd aim to get the article to FAC as soon as possible, once the very minor outstanding matters are settled, and I look forward to supporting it there. Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Get on with it. I think it will pass relatively quickly and with little controversy. I would certainly support early on.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, guys, but I have not satisfied Awadewit's comments yet. I do not believe that she will support the article until I do, and I don't want to go in with her opposition. Shoemaker has not been able to help yet, and I must wait for him to be available at the end of the month. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, fair enough. FACs where there is still the sound of hammering in the background often work out well, but are not the best practice in my view. Best to present the article with all known problems resolved.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

However, there is no certainty that Shoemaker will come up with the goods if/when he becomes available. You might be waiting a long time. If the one remaining issue is to satisfy Awadewit about the source of one image, I would suggest you temporarily drop the image, send the article to FAC without it, and when its PD status is confirmed, reinsert it. The temporary absence of this image will not affect the FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No, that is not the only issue. See Awadewit's comments above. I would ask that you guys stop discussing the "process" here. This page is for comments on the article itself. If you have nothing new, please let me try to work on satisfying the comments. The talk here is just making it harder for me to navigate this page. If you want to talk to me, kindly use my talk page or e-mail. Thanks. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This peer review discussion has been closed.