Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Trial by Jury/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trial by Jury

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

Trial by Jury is the subject of Wikiproject Gilbert and Sullivan's current FA drive, and we've attempted to use every source at our disposal, including a visit to a major research library.

We would like any and all recommendations to get this to FA.

Thanks, Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This peer review discussion has been closed.


Brianboulton comments: This is a well-written and comprehensive article. I have two general issues, and a number of queries/suggestions relating to fairly minor points.

  • Images: some of the images are rather large, and a bit disruptive to the presentation of the text. I wonder if it would be worthwhile reducing these, and relying more on the thumb for enlargement? Again, does the Punch illustration need the full three verses of the related satirical poem? Also, two left-aligned images appear to violate WPMOS#images, appearing directly under subsection titles.
They were adjusted with respect to a high-resolution monitor, so I've gone through and reduced anything that does not have good reason for large size, e.g. to make text readable, or to bring out important detail. Are they still too large? The Bab Ballad version and Sullivan's musical sketch for the opera certainly need to be a decent size if (in the first case) the text is to be made out, and (in the second) if it's to look like anything significant at all. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Balance: the article is somewhat unbalanced by the exhaustive performance history detail. To give 13 different cast-lists for repertory performances, and seven cast-lists for gala performances, seems to me excessive. This sort of detail might appeal to a G&S specialist historian rather than to a general reader—the performers’ names may mean a lot to knowledgeable Savoyans, but to most of us they don’t mean much. It might be worth noting in the text that, in gala performances, Gilbert himself often played the role of the Associate.
Gilbert and Sullivan has the odd situation where it was dominated by one company for a long time, and the performers in that company became very well known. If necessary, the lists could always be spun off to a list article, but I'm uncomfortable doing that until there's definite consensus it needs done, since I'm a little loath to remove potentially useful information =). Also, the text does discuss Gilbert playing the assosciate, or did you mean in a previous section to the benefits one? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we do spin one off, I would leave the original cast, maybe one or two other famous ones and I would not spin off the benefits casts, since that was a special situation that only affects Trial. If we do make a spin-off article, we should spin off ALL the shows, don't you think? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor points
    • Production and aftermath:
      • Suggest mdash in para 2
        • Done.
      • Para 3: nbsp required in "30 minutes"; suggest delete the words "In the end" in last sentence. In the end of what? It’s not needed.
        • I think it's useful - we discussattempts to get them back together again. In the end, these attempts failed, and they went their seperate ways.
    • Synopsis: "Edwin suggests…he is willing to marry both women" – we need reminding about this other woman; suggest "…to marry both Angelina and his current flame" – or something similar.
    • Musical numbers list: Is this necessary, since you have mentioned every number, in sequence, in the above synopsis. You could put the numerals into the synopsis if you wanted (e.g. No.1: "Hark the hour of ten is sounding" etc.) but an extra listing is surely not required.
      • It's not required, but the "Analysis of music and text" section, perhaps unsurprisingly, references the song numbers and such heavily, so it's probably easier for the reader if it's also set out simply and clearly. We could probably cut the mention of the numbers in the synopsis, though, you know.
    • Reception: The "Wagnerian" quote is given verbatim in the lead, and cited. It doesn’t need a full repetition here (with citation). Likewise, the "juxtaposition" quote is previously given, with citation, in the Production section. Also, could you check the spelling of "humor" in the Ainger quote? I raise this because the book appears to be a British publication.
      • I don't have Ainger to hand, but I suspect you're right. I've checked, "humor" is correct. As for the repetition, I think it's probably useful to keep it all together, so I cut the earlier uses instead.
NOTE: For some reason, Ainger uses US spellings. Probably owing to the agency of an ill-natured marketing fairy.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Analysis of music:
      • The statement about G&S tenor arias usually being in 6/8 time – due you have a source for this?
        • It's common knowledge in the field, but I'm surrounded by Gilbert biographies at the moment, and nothing that covers Sullivan in any depth. It's probably in Ainger. It's perhaps over-emphasising Trial in this case, though - 6/8 was, as far as I'm aware, Sullivan's preference for tenor arias long before Trial. I think I'll comment it out. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I’m not especially knowledgeable about G&S, but is "When I, good friends" really a "patter" song? I thought patter songs required the kind of rapid rhythm associated with, say, the Major-general's song, or the Lord Chancellor's nightmare song in Iolanthe? Put me right about this, by all means.
    • Trial intiates…: "…the plot and the action must be discovered through the music". Sounds like a quote, or a part of a quote. Can you cite it?
      • This whole paragraphoh is summarising a lengthy argument on Crowther p. 76-78. The bit you mention is not an actual quote, but summarises part of a lengthy argument on Crowther, p. 77, which is cited a few words later. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Production: First sentence of the middle para is an exact repetition from the lead. All the info in this middle para has previously been given.
You cannot include anything in the LEAD that is not explored somewhere in the body of the article. I hope you didn't cut something that is in the LEAD? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article probably needs a good MOS check. Overall, though, I found this good-quality stuff. I hope my suggestions help. Brianboulton (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't I see these peer review comments before? Would you please alert me to stuff like this if you see that I am not participating? I totally missed it! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • I think so, because it is only being used for the purpose of supporting the assertion that Anna Russell says this in her comedy routine. If you listen to the album, she certainly says this. I suspect that there are other references for the same point, however, and will keep an eye out.
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.) 00:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

[This Peer Review discussion has been closed.]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Trial_by_Jury/archive1&oldid=221197032"