Talk:H.M.S. Pinafore/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Initial comments

I will review this in coming days. My initial reaction is that it looks extremely comprehensive and detailed. I may have some queries about its structure, and about risks of too much detail being provided for a single encyclopedia article. But back later for detailed check. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Note, by way of comparison, that two of the other G&S operas have previously been through the FA process: Trial by Jury and Thespis (opera). But Pinafore is the first "typical" 2-act G&S opera that we will (hopefully) bring to FA and will set the style/structure for all the others that follow. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Some initial thoughts.

This is a marvellous work which is obviously on its way to FA. I wish to flag at the outset that, notwithstanding what i think are significant structural questions about the article, I will be clearing it for GA in fairly short order. As in Awadewit's review of Trial by Jury, i am seeking to assist the extremely committed and outstanding editors here to go beyond just the GA stage :-)

I have responded below to some of your comments, and others will join in. Let me just thank you, however, for all your hard work in reviewing this article and for your detailed comments. I look forward to working with you (and any other other reviewers along the way) to make this article, which is very important to our project, the best that it can be, and, I hope, the best single article about Pinafore on the internet. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I have briefly examined Thespis (opera) and Trial by Jury as well as Pinafore. There are differences in structure.

• Thespis: synopsis; roles and cast; background; reception; assessment; surviving music; text; musical numbers; recordings etc
• TJ: background (which includes a section called "production and aftermath"); roles; synopsis; musical numbers; reception; impact and analysis; productions; benefit performances; recordings; textual changes etc
• Pinafore: background, reception and analysis; roles; synopsis; musical numbers; versions and cut material; productions; historical casting; recordings; adaptations; cultural impact etc

This material presents two immediate issues. The first is the desire for some consistency across the G&S project, which will improve readiability for users visiting related articles on a subject of interest. I have never taken an article to FA nor done FA reviewing, so this is an area in which I am learning. I was surprised to see such different structural approaches within a project with overlap of cotnributors and what otherwise looks to be a very high level of commitment to material of outstanding quality. The second issue concerns aggregating material of like nature in one spot in the article. This to me is the most significant editorial issue in what is otherwise remarkable material.

Since Pinafore was G&S's first mega-hit, and since Pinafore is much more "typical" of most of the G&S operas than either Thespis or Trial, Pinafore will set the standard for the all the following articles. Your comment is very well taken, and we certainly need to consider the structure and order of sections carefully. I think that basically, it should be background; roles and synopsis (or vice versa?); musical numbers; versions and cut material; reception and analysis; cultural impact; summary of productions; historical casting; recordings; adaptations; etc. But opinions will differ. Sorry, but what do you mean by "aggregating material of like nature"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thespis is so unusual that we're probably not going to be able to fit it into the same structure as the others. Trial and Pinafore can probably be made mostly-consistent. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ssilvers proposal about structure, above, is OK, and I don't want to cut across any consensus being reached by a large number of editors across a big project like Opera. However, two comments. The current "Background" section is way too long and detailed to all come before the synposis. I would be looking for a few paras / a screen or so, maximum, before we come to a description of the work. I would suggest, for example, that essentially all content from "Original production" onward should come after the synopsis. My second comment, which may be a challenge to accommodate, is that I would prefer to see the material in some sort of priority order of importance to a reader of an encyclopedia (not an opera buff). All the detail about productions (even the high level of detail about the initial production) seem to me to be less important than the cultural impact of the work, and therefore I would prefer to see the analyis of its influences and effects sooner in the article.

We have now moved some sections around in order to bring the synopsis higher up and respond to some of your other structural comments. I think that any further re-ordering should await the comment process either at a peer review or FA, to get input from more editors. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Re your query about "aggregating material of like nature". A couple of examples appear immediately below in my initial comments. What I meant was that, presently, sentences and paragraphs about one aspect of the article's subject are sometimes dispersed across the article. For example, the first two paras under "Analysis" appear to me to belong with the text under the heading "Cultural impact". The third para, in contrast, is a precis of the matter contained within some well-known individual songs in Pinafore. It does not belong with "Cultural impact". Hope this helps. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Here are some of the areas in which the structure could be improved:

• There is detail under "[Background/]Production" that belongs in "Synopsis" (comments on the meaning of a song) and in "Cultural impact" (eg. the fact that lines became "popular quotations on both sides of the Atlantic").

The synopsis should simply summarize the plot. But you are quite right that the description of songs shouldn't be in the Background section, and I have moved it down to the analysis section for now, though we might further evolve this part of the article before FA. Also, any other "analysis" type material in the Background section or elsewhere should be consolidated in the Analysis section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• There should not be an early sub-section of the article about the initial productions called "Production", and then a separate heading "Productions" that is about the entire production history with an emphasis on later tours etc, but is at the other 'end' of the WP entry. These should be drawn together, and kept firmly focussed on matters relating to productions themselves, with other issues addressed in the remaining article sections as appropriate.

I renamed the Production section "Original production", which is a detailed description of the history of the original production. The later production section is just a brief summary of later productions over the past 130 years, no one of which is nearly as important as the original, and I think we are very consistent throughout the entire G&S project (all 13 surviving G&S operas, anyhow) in the way this section is constructed. We could call it "Summary of productions" if that helps? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• As someone who saw Pinafore at the Sydney Opera House as a child, but not since, the Synopsis seems to me very out of place so late in the article. It should be one of the first sections. This would help a reader who knows nothing of the piece. It would also reduce the need for passing explanations of content in other sections (for example the para beginning "Some of the best-known songs from the opera...")

I agree. I moved the synopsis section up higher. Let's see what Shoemaker thinks. But I do think that the Background section logically goes first and that it will be easy for any reader to click on the TOC and skip the background to go straight to the synopsis if they really want to. [Ssilvers]

I could go either way, but background first flows best here. I suppose it's possible that, in another article, the background might need an explanation of the plot to understand it, but I don't think we should worry too much about inconsistency so long as the inconsistencies are because that particular article's information is better presented that way. Let's keep it as you've done it. User:Shoemaker's Holiday (at internet cafe) 08:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have now moved the original production materials further down so that synopsis is even higher now. I think this might satisfy everyone? -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• The "cultural impact" material, particularly when beefed up with some relevant material from previous sections, is important and should precede "Historical casting" and "Recordings".

I would agree with that. Shoe? I do think that the Production summary section and the Historical casting section need to stay together, though. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree - let's try and put as much as is reasonable before the giant tables, because that's probably where we're going to lose some readers. (I, of course, don't advocate removing the tables, but I don't think there's any denying that people not interested in them may well think that once we begin the extra-dense information, they've reached the end of the article User:Shoemaker's Holiday (at internet cafe) 08:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• I am inclined to think the section listing "Roles" counterproductively breaks up the flow of the article and is not critical to the reader, given they will already have been presented with a synopsis. I think this might best be placed as an initial sub-section within "Historical casting", which itself will be near the end of the article.

Again, we have this same sort of roles section in all of our articles. In both the opera project and the musical theatre project the roles section is next to the synopsis section, either before or afterwards. I would not mind putting it after the synopsis section, although personally, I think that having it above helps the reader to understand the synopsis section, because they can look up if they forget who we are talking about (although pinafore's plot is fairly simple). Shoe, what do you think? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This is standard practice for almost all theatrical articles, here and elsewhere. It inevitably comes about where it does here. User:Shoemaker's Holiday (at internet cafe) 08:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• I welcome other editors' views, however i have similar concerns about the list of "Musical numbers". As an editor who works on a range of politics entries, i often find lists of data half way through textual articles, and seldom find it conducive to readability or comprehension of the text. This might also go later in the article.

In both the opera project and ours, we list the musical numbers as shown in the standard settled version of the musical score. I think that anyone who reads about opera or theatre (or, indeed anyone who plays recordings) is used to seeing a list of musical numbers. Also, it seems to me, that it should closely follow the synopsis section, since these three sections - roles, synopsis and musical numbers, basically describe the text and music of the show itself. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Going to have to agree here. Anyway, it's a lot easier to do analysis if we have the pertinent information already covered. User:Shoemaker's Holiday (at internet cafe) 08:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• I would likewise be tempted to make the section "Versions and cut material" a subsection beneath the list of musical numbers. I would welcome the general view of a more experienced editor about the inclusion of this matter at all. I am aware that at FA (which is rightly the goal for this article), a WP entry is supposed to include essentially everything you would ever want to know. But I would have thought very few readers would want to know about these particular minutiae. In any case, they need to be placed as unobtrusively as possible in the content of the article as a whole.

I have reduced the heading level as you suggest, but the information about Hebe's dialogue doesn't really go togher with the musical numbers. Perhaps Shoe has a better solution? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think they're important enough to discuss, but Pinafore cut material is hardly on the level of Yeomen or Grand Duke, so it would be reasonable to put it later in the article. I'll have a look. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this makes sense as part of the analysis section. Don't you? It also helps to arrange the article in (very roughly) the order of importance an average reader will assign to the sections. User:Shoemaker's Holiday (at internet cafe) 08:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it's part of the analysis section, but I agree that the order you put it in is good, so I just changed the heading level. As I said above, I think we've come to a reasonable order for the article now, although we may get more comments on it at peer review or FA consideration. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Other thoughts

• Not sure the Lewis Carroll reaction to "Damme" is of sufficient importance to quote at length, but Carroll's notability in his own right may warrant it. It occupies more than half the entire section on children's productions, which makes the section lopsided. Also, the section indicates that Carte adapted the score, but there is nothing about adaptation of the libretto - other than at least one crucial word was unchanged, to the disappointment of Carroll! (Incidentally, I would question the quality of the reference for this - the potted history website. Has no serious scholar of the material noted or transcribed this letter?)

I streamlined the Carroll quote. Shoe can comment on the rest. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, he's discussed - usually at length - in every important discussion of Children's Pinafore. We may as well follow this trend in other sources, but keep it short, as befits an overview article. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• The quotes of the initial reviews I think are too long and could benefit from synthesis by editors and some more judicious quoting - perhaps in at least one case using call-out quotes, left-aligned.

I agree, but I am waiting for Shoemaker's input on this section and will let him take a crack at this. A couple more of the reviews also need to be synthesized in, per Stedman. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well, though it might be nice to spin them off somewhere, as they're useful primary source material which can be (somewhat) difficult to find. Maybe Wikisource? But not here. User:Shoemaker's Holiday (from an internet cafe, long story, suffice it to say that I ended up in town much earlier than when I could do what I came into town to do). 08:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If noone objects, I'll shove a copy of this section onto the talk page, and start copyediting? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

All for now. Good stuff. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've rearranged things a bit per the talk. Should the "recordings" section go a bit lower down? And should we move the audio files up a bit, say, next to the list of musical numbers? User:Shoemaker's Holiday (at an internet cafe) 08:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Recordings is in the right place. I also think it makes sense to have the audio files in the Recordings section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

progress

Good progress. i am going to clear this for GA now. Here are my comments for further improvement based on the articles current form:

• The following appears to me to be a level of detail unnecessary for the background section:

  “ I have very little doubt whatever but that you will be pleased with it. I should have liked to have talked it over with you, as there is a good deal of fun in it which I haven't set down on paper. Among other things a song (a kind of 'Judge's Song') for the First Lord – tracing his career as office-boy... clerk, traveller, junior partner and First Lord of Britain's Navy. I think a splendid song can be made of this. Of course there will be no personality in this – the fact that the First Lord in the Opera is a Radical of the most pronounced type will do away with any suspicion that W. H. Smith is intended.[12] Mrs. Cripps [Little Buttercup] will be a capital part for Everard.... Barrington will be a capital captain, and Grossmith a first-rate First Lord...As soon as I hear from you that the plot will do, I will set to work, sending you the first act as soon as it is finished.[11]”
  Despite Gilbert's disclaimer, everyone identified Sir Joseph Porter with W. H. Smith, but in general, Gilbert's intentions in this early sketch were turned into reality.[13]

The similarities and differences between First Lord in the opera and W.H. Smith should probably be noted in the "Initial critical reception" section, while the long quote of the note, some of which I suggest is rather uninteresting, should be precised in the background section. If the full quote is to be kept for reference purposes, it could be moved to the talk page.

I personally think that this quote is particularly relevant, though if others disagree, others disagree. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the quote is very relevant and important, but I have streamlined it, shortening it and retaining (I hope) the most intersting and important parts. We'll see what other commenters think as we go through the comment process. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• The following sentence should be moved from the "Original production" heading, to being the first sentence under "Bringing Pinafore to the US":

  Meanwhile, numerous pirated versions of Pinafore began to be played in America with great success, beginning with a production in Boston that opened on 25 November 1878.[25]

  (and dropping the word "meanwhile", obviously).
• The next sentence and comment:

  Pinafore became a source of popular quotations on both sides of the Atlantic, such as the exchange:
  

"What, never?"

"No, never!"

"What, never?"

"Well, hardly ever!"[31][32][33]

should not be under "initial production" as it is a comment on the cultural impact of the opera, and should thus be in the "cultural impact" section.

• The proeceding point goes to a remark I made previously and would reiterate - Pinafore's cultural impact has been huge and I really do think it should be well up in the substance of the piece. As it happens I think this is simple to achieve because there is a lot of material that belongs naturally together, and as the last sections of the article. These are:

• Versions and cut material
• Recordings
• Adaptations
• Subsequent productions (which goes well with the versions and cut material, because they can result in variations in those subsequent productions)
• Historical casting

Once that material is grouped together, "Cultural impact" ends up where it belongs - adjacent to "Analysis".

• I think I saw some discussion about where to place the audio files of the 1911 material. I actually do not think that material has to all remain with the "Recordings" section, which is obviously near the end of the article. One of the recordings at least could be somewhere up near the top of the article where a reader will quickly see it and listen if they wish. Perhaps adjacent to a part of the Synopsis that mstches the content of a recording?
• I think Ssilver was commenting [Note: No, not me, it was Shoe - Ssilvers] that it would be shame to lose the material in the extended quotes of the reviews. I understand the sentiment but, at the same time, i think the encyclopedia article should synthesise that initial critical reaction more than it does at present. i am still inclined to see long quotes like that cut down to a tighter focus on quoting some pithy points, with other information synthesised by editors. I appreciate that material that is hard to access can be a valuable resource for future editing, and I certainly see the merit in archiving them on the talk pages for that purpose. However, my inclination would be that, if as a reader of an encyclopedia, I wanted to get to that level of detail, I should be going to a book about G&S or Pinafore rather than expecting it to be here at WP. What I do think is particularly fine - and great to have in the WP article - is the images and audio files, and I think both major editors here, Ssilver and Shoemakers holiday, deserve great credit for their bringing of this material not only to this article, but to WP more generally. hamiltonstone

Thanks for all your help, Hamiltonstone! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)