Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/W. S. Gilbert
All the original Peer review issues have, I think, been dealt with. What now? What needs done for FA? All comments welcome. Vanished user talk 22:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- This article looks good. As far as what needs to be done before it reaches FA status, I would suggest two things. First, though the article's bibliography seems solid, the footnotes should refer to these works more often; there are relatively few footnotes. Additionally, I would suggest that the well-done list of his works be transfered to a new article List of W. S. Gilbert's Works, to which you can link in the article on the man. --Zantastik talk 23:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Mixed reference styles: convert all references to cite.php.
- Putting the References section in alphabetical order will help readers associate footnotes with References.
- ISBN numbers on all books will contribute to the quality of the article.
- References should include only works actually used in citing the article: were all of those sources used, or should some of them be listed as Further reading? If they were used, there should be inline citations for them.
- Please expand all footnotes to a bibliographic style, for example:
- The Memoirs of Jessie Bond needs some kind of information about the author, etc., to tell us why this personal website rises to the level of a reliable source. Providing more bibliographic detail in the footnote will help.
- Even within the footnotes, there isn't a consistent style - please use one style:
- (Gilbert 1890, pp. 158–9).
- See Ainger, p.148, and Stedman, pp.318-320.
- The text is severely undercited: work on beefing up the inline citations is needed.
- Is there no criticism of his work?
- I haven't looked at the prose in detail, but the lead indicates a need for prose polishing and copyediting for redundancy and fluidity; some details (such as dates) can be eliminated from the lead and covered in the text:
- Gilbert's most popular collaboration with Sullivan, The Mikado (1885), became one of the most frequently performed works of musical theatre in history.[3][4] That work, together with H.M.S. Pinafore (1878), The Pirates of Penzance (1879), and several others of these comic operas are still performed very frequently today throughout the English-speaking world and beyond.
- Gilbert's most popular collaboration with Sullivan, The Mikado, is one of the most frequently performed works in musical theatre; other Gilbert and Sullivan comic operas, including H.M.S. Pinafore and The Pirates of Penzance, are performed frequently throughout the world. (Find a way to avoid using the word "frequently" twice.)
- Gilbert's most popular collaboration with Sullivan, The Mikado (1885), became one of the most frequently performed works of musical theatre in history.[3][4] That work, together with H.M.S. Pinafore (1878), The Pirates of Penzance (1879), and several others of these comic operas are still performed very frequently today throughout the English-speaking world and beyond.
- I agree with the comment above about transferring the list of works to a separate article, which can then be summarized back to the main article.
I suggest serious work on improving the citations, as well networking to find new editors for a fresh look at copyediting, followed by a new peer review before approaching FAC: there is still much work to be done on the article, but an excellent foundation is in place. Sandy 17:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Right then! The multiple-form cites are fairly easy to fix, as is spinning off the list. I'll do that ASAP. Vanished user talk 18:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- Done what I could with what I had to hand and a slight flu. Vanished user talk 21:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Much improved. Most remaining problems have already been mentioned. I'll just point out once again the lack of citations. And I agree that the list of works is very big as it is now. Such lists are not esteemed in WP:FAC. A seperate sub-article with a summary of it here is a nice idea. Some further minor remarks:
- In notes, you don't citate the external links the right way. You should include title and author (if there is one) - date it was retrieved is also recommended. Check any recent FA with external links in references section to have an idea.
- If some sources in "References" are not used in "Notes", then they could be moved to a seperate section named "Further reading".--Yannismarou 11:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- Fixed. A little worried about the Nancy McIntosh reference not being used, but suspect that was more of a reference to be used later than one used now. Vanished user talk 21:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)