Wikipedia:Peer review/Arthur Sullivan/archive2

Arthur Sullivan

Previous peer review

.

Arthur Sullivan has been a Good Article for nearly ten years, and we think it is time to bring it to FA, to join W. S. Gilbert and Sullivan's English composer peers, Elgar, Delius, Vaughan Williams, Holst, Walton, Britten et al. The article was peer reviewed almost ten years ago, since when it has received numerous edits. Comments on all aspects will be welcome – on prose, content, sourcing, images or anything else. – Ssilvers (talk) and Tim riley talk 22:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• I've just had a preliminary look at the article. My first impression is that it is (unusually for a WP article) miles and miles too long and could do with some judicious trimming. There's a lot of 'bumf' - e.g. note 1 and many of the other notes, detailed itemization of musical reference and parodies (without mention of the fact that such pastiche was a standard practice of Victorian musical entertainments), long quotes from a not very revealing Times review of 1957 or a Musical Times article of 2000, mystifying statements such as 'Sullivan's best known contrapuntal device was "the simultaneous presentation of two or more distinct melodies previously heard independently" ' (really, not quite such a rare phenomenon in music as the quote suggests...). We go to an encyclopedia to get the meat of a topic, but a lot of this appears to be WP:UNDUE. And another impression is that there is not much from the past 20 years or so......some assessment of Sullivan in the 21st century would be be helpful. Anyway, that's enough whingeing, I will try to get down to some more specific stuff over the next couple of weeks.....Smerus (talk) 08:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Food for thought there - thank you, Smerus. We'll ponder, and look forward to your further additions. I shall almost certainly take issue with you about Sullivan's trademark contrapuntal trick: I reckon there are very few earlier examples of it, but I am not at home and haven't got my music books to hand: an agreeable punch-up for another day, perhaps. Meanwhile, looking forward to your detailed comments in due course. Tim riley talk 18:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Smerus! We'll definitely look at the article with these comments in mind. I look forward to your detailed comments! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• I think the article is ready for FA status. I do not believe that it is too long as ASS is an important subject and the length of the article is fully justified by his international fame and important musical contributions. I do agree that a more in depth assessment of Sullivan in the late 20th/early 21st century would be appropriate. Jack1956 (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Jack. Point taken about modern musicological assessment. There is a new book out, which from the excerpt I have seen is scholarly and almost completely unreadable, but I'll whistle it up at the British Library and see if I can extract anything of use. Much obliged for your looking in here. Tim riley talk 19:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Afterthought: the juxtaposition of Jack Point, above, was completely inadvertent and fortuitous. Tim riley talk 19:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments on 'Life' section by Smerus

Mendelssohn Scholar

• Notes 1 and 2 say nothing about Sullivan and should be removed. Note 1 is about Lind. Note 2 - Jacobs makes it clear that the whole shtick about Sullivan being Jewish was baseless gossip and rumour. No serious scholar (unless you include Young, who is diffident) has ever asserted it. I don't think WP should give any credence to this sort of nonsense, even by denying it.

Good points. I deleted Note 2 and cut down Note 1, pending any further changes by Tim. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

1870s; first collaborations with Gilbert

• "Also in 1870, Sullivan met Gilbert." This is rather bland considering Gilbert's eventual role in Sullivan's musical and personal life. We should have at least a little something on who Gilbert was, what he was doing at the time he met S, Gilbert's previous theatrical work, etc.

Thanks. I added some Gilbert background. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• "reunited Gilbert and Sullivan...." They had not been 'united' in the first place (Thespis being a passing occupation for both) - surely, should be something like, "brought Gilbert and Sullivan once more together, with the result that the one-act comic opera Trial by Jury became the foundation of what would become a famous partnership."

I've made some changes along these lines. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Death, honours and legacy

• I suggest the legacy stuff be taken out of the Life section and dealt with as part of "Reputation and Criticism" as a separate section.

What do you think, Tim? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm content either way. I don't think the case for moving it is overwhelming, but nor, me judice, is the case for keeping it where it is. Let's see if anyone else expresses a view. Tim riley talk 17:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Having thought about this for a couple of days, I think it is better where it is, although if there is any repetition, we could streamline that. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Romantic life

• "the number of sexual acts completed"... blechhh! And how anyway do we know they were completed? Just replace the phrase with "sexual congress".

Sexual congress is what we have in Washington DC these days. The point is that notating this in his diary for 20 years was a little "blechhh." I think "completed" is more efficient than "engaged in that evening", but let us know if you have other solutions in mind. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Leisure and family life

• have we been told who "Grove, Chorley and Herman Klein" are? Links and/or explanation required. Even I have never heard of Klein and I pride myself on pointless knowledge of extreme musical obscurities.

Grove, Chorley and Klein have each been discussed and linked to above. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

More anon. Best, Smerus (talk) 13:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for these, which may provoke more changes by Tim. Looking forward to reading your further comments below and in the future. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

A most worthy project. Here's my small first batch to hold my place in the queue.

• The third lede paragraph refers to G&S being "reunited", twice. The first use, for Trial by Jury, seems a bit of an overstatement, they were simply working on a joint project with Thespis, it was not a partnership like later. I'd change it. The one following the Carpet Quarrel is the obvious word and is fine.

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• "By the waters of Babylon", by the age of eight.[5] " Since you are in no position to change the first by, I suggest changing the second.

I separated the two "by"s, which I hope helps a little. Tim, do we need the second "by", or is "at" close enough? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Ainger says "by", but Jacobs is more definite. I've changed to "when" and deleted the Ainger ref. Tim riley talk 11:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• "While recognising the boy's obvious musical talent, his father knew the insecurity of a musical career" I would strike the first "musical".

Good idea! Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• The first two sentences of that paragraph commence with "While"

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• "While studying at a private school in Bayswater, Sullivan, then aged 11, persuaded his parents and the headmaster to allow him to apply for membership in the choir of the Chapel Royal.[8] " I might add the year. You speak of his age twice in this passage, then put the reader to the trouble of going back and learning his birth year to figure out how much service he did give the Chapel Royal.

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• "the future the head of the academy" one less the, possibly.

Tim, can we delete the first "the" under Brit usage? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

A Riley typo, since corrected. Tim riley talk 11:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• "During this year at the academy," I might toss in a "first" before "year"

Good idea. Done. Tim riley talk 11:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• The Academy paid for the first year in Leipzig and Sullivan Sr the third. Who paid for the second?

That's an extremely good question. Now covered. Tim riley talk 11:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• In the image block, Mr Burnand seems to be looking off the page, which may raise eyebrows. Although it is not chronological, possibly he should be switched with Mr Grove.

True, but I'd prefer to stick to chronology unless my arm is twisted. Of course I could find another picture of Burnand, and I'll away and look for one. Tim riley talk 20:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

And now done. Tim riley talk 22:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• "each such genre" I might "those genres"

I missed that one the first time through. Now done. Tim rily talk 19:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Sullivan's most enduring orchestral work ,,, it became Sullivan's most enduring hymn.[42]" I would not make an endurance contest out of this.

I've changed the second to "best-known" and added a suitable citation. Tim riley talk 11:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• "In this he was correct.[n 13] Sullivan was not effective in the post, and he resigned in 1881." These two sentences could be joined, possibly moving up the use of "Sullivan".--Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Good. Done. Tim riley talk 11:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I dealt with some of these and will let Tim consider the others. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks from me too: I've added and tinkered. Tim riley talk 11:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

A few more, to the start of "Music".

• "were produced at the Savoy, as a result of which they are widely known as the "Savoy operas"." Are you saying that the post-Patience ones are collectively known as that? Sometimes it's all the G&S operettas.

• I've added an explanatory footnote. The term is decidedly imprecise and has been, and to some extent still is, used to mean (i) the G&S works premiered at the Savoy, (ii) all comic operas premiered at the Savoy, and (iii) – most usually, I think – the whole G&S canon. Tim riley talk 14:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• "In a lengthy exchange of correspondence, Sullivan pronounced Gilbert's plot sketch (particularly the "lozenge" element) unacceptably mechanical, and too similar in both its grotesque "elements of topsyturveydom" and in actual plot to their earlier work, especially The Sorcerer,[n 17] and repeatedly requested that Gilbert find a new subject.[110] " I won't argue with the grammar, but there are too many ands for the reader to unravel.

• Sentence split to save an "and". Tim riley talk 14:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• "for The Grand Duke (1896). This also failed" You don't actually describe Utopia, Limited as a failure.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Tweaked. Thank you for these points. Looking forward to any more, at your leisure. Tim riley talk 14:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• "He left the overtures until last and often delegated their composition, based on his outlines, to his assistants,[204] often adding his suggestions or corrections.[205] " often ... often

• Done. Tim riley talk 16:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Potpourri is probably common enough in English that the italics are not needed.
  • Agreed. And I've added a hyphen in accordance with the OED. Tim riley talk 16:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• "Sullivan invariably conducted the operas on their opening nights.[210]" This sentence doesn't really fit the theme of the paragraph, which is the characteristics of his overtures.

Thanks. I've moved this to a better position. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Later he drew on Gounod and Bizet ... Hughes writes that although Sullivan draws on these influences " Some inconsistency in tense.

• Now gone from current text. Tim riley talk 16:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Sullivan's orchestra for the Savoy Operas was typical of any other pit orchestra of his era" I think you could cut ""any other pit orchestra of"

I'll leave this to Tim, but pit orchestras were very different from concert orchestras, and I think we may need this for clarity. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• Pruned. Tim riley talk 16:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC):

• "and a second tenor trombone" it may be worth a footnote mentioning Nanki-Poo's supposed profession.

• Tempting, but I think we really ought to forbear. (I have a dim memory of reading somewhere speculation that this was an in-joke referring to Sullivan's campaign for a bigger orchestra, but I rather doubt it. Doesn't sound like WSG's style to me.) Tim riley talk 16:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• In "Musical quotations ..." although organised in paragraph form, this feels more like a list. Possibly some tightening to make it clearer the examples used are making a point.
  • Section redrawn recently. Not so listy now, I think. Tim riley talk 16:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• "Dr Sullivan's" If possible, an explanatory footnote regarding the title.
  • Indeed. One shall be added.
• Do the two 1888 recordings need to be in the middle of the text?
  • I think the answer is yes. But I'll ask someone more skilful than I with sound files if that is indeed so. Tim riley talk 16:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's it. I don't think it's too long. Enjoyed reading it, dare I hope it is the first of a trilogy?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for these. I'll let Tim consider and respond. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

My thanks too. This has been a particularly fruitful PR, and I think I can speak for both us when I say we are grateful for your contribution to it. – Tim riley talk 16:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments on Music section (Smerus)

A continuation of my grousing. I should have said btw at the start of the last section that the article seems to me to be basically very sound overall. The 'Life' section is exhaustive, and there can be little of anything to add. The 'music' section seems to me to need some tidying up and could benefit from more recent citations, rather than relying (as it does in places) on stuff from 60 or more years ago. There's no need to respond to all of my burblings of course, but some may strike home.....

Method of composition and text setting

• "The overtures from the Gilbert and Sullivan operas remain popular" Do they? I think we need some evidence for this in terms of performance numbers or whatever. They have certainly fallen off as concert items in my lifetime.

Fair enough; deleted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• If you can't find anything more recent than a rather tired and uninspiring Times article of 1957 (which in any case sheds no light on the topics of the section) to praise Sullivan's music, better to have nothing.

Tim? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll have a rummage. There will be something more recent in one of the Musical Times reappraisals of Sullivan. Tim riley talk 12:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Melody and rhythm

• "Sullivan frequently produced two climaxes in the melodic line" - I'm not really clear what this means, and I really think this needs some explanation, preferably with a musical illustration.

Fair point. What I'm trying to get across is that in a song with a verse and a refrain you need a climax in each, and the one in the refrain must top the one in the verse. A musical illustration is an attractive idea, and I'll see what I can do, Tim riley talk 12:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Would this, or something like it, illustrate the point adequately? Tim riley talk 13:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• This would be fine by me --Smerus (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• " though most of the melodies in the Savoy operas are good ones" Hmm. If this is simply the opinion of Hughes we should say so, or it should be otherwise justified.

Well, it is in an oratio recta quotation, within the requisite quotation marks, and attributed inline to Hughes. Tim riley talk 12:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Sullivan's rare excursions into minor keys" Are they in fact that rare? What of Verdi and Beethoven is in fact 'echoed' in 'Go away madam?'. Is not Sullivan's use of the minor properly justified by the contexts of the libretti ('Go away', 'When you're lying awake', 'When midnight howls'....) - The libretti are mainly jolly, so perhaps it's a case maybe of his sensitivity, not his aversion to minor keys?

I'd defend this assertion. In the entire Savoy canon there are fewer than 20 numbers wholly in the minor, and not all of them are serious or melodramatic: Bouncer's song from Cox and Box is a jolly Handelian parody in the minor, and "Of all the young ladies I know" (Iolanthe) and "If somebody there chanced to be" (Ruddigore) are instances of Sullivan choosing a minor key for no obvious dramatic reason. But he didn't do it very often. In the serious works, in, e.g., The Golden Legend there are only three substantial sections in the minor; in the symphony only one (though a longish an important one, it's true); in Ivanhoe, although the confrontation between Rebecca and the Templar makes striking use of the contrast between A flat minor (her) and A flat major (him) there's not a great deal else of any length in the minor. On the Beethoven-Verdi-Sullivan point, see this side by side comparison. There is text to back it up, but I feel I have delighted the reader enough already on this point. Tim riley talk 12:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll wait for Tim to weigh in on these. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I feel lunch coming on and will resume after that. Tim riley talk 12:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Harmony and counterpoint

• The "formulae" of Auber means virtually nothing to the contemporary reader (and can't even have meant much to Hughes in 1959). And Balfe is not much more than a name, either.

Redrawn. Tim riley talk 17:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Tim, I like your change, but do we even need to name Auber, Donizetti and Balfe? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

We could, and just leave Schubert but that would be a bit lopsided and misleading I feel. And naming the earlier lot points up the contrast with his later drawing from Bizet and Gounod. Tim riley talk 22:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• While I'm at it, only 7 of the sources cited in the article are 2000 or later - is there really not that much that can replace the stuff from the 1950s and 1960s? Hughes is now pretty antique and seems to be the major source from notes 192 onwards.

There has been little scholarly analysis since Hughes and Young: some articles, but no books. But a brand new (or as Gilbert would have said "bran-new") book has come out. The British Library has not yet got a printed copy, but it appears that a digital version is available at the BL (not remotely), which I will toddle down and consult during the next week. Tim riley talk 14:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Hughes wrote that while Sullivan draws on these influences he remains recognisably himself". I for one would tend to disagree. The Savoy Operas were in a Victorian tradition of pastiche and imitation of opera in which Gilbert was well-versed, and which used frequent reference to plots and indeed melodies of operas by Meyerbeer, Verdi and other composers.....Sullivan seems to me to be often deliberately referencing his peers, and 'recognizable' more as an ingenious parodist than as 'himself' - I am sure someone must have written on this......Anyway, you also cite Hughes as saying that Sullivan "had easily recognizable [harmonic] habits but his style never achieved individuality" - with which I personally would agree, but somewhat contradicts the quote from Hughes at the start of this point.

We must agree to differ on this opinion. Tim riley talk 14:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Eheu, in the word of Molesworth (or was it Fotherington Thomas?) --Smerus (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• I suggest "consecutive fifths" rather than "consecutive fifths"

Good. Done. I had not twigged that we had an article on it. Tim riley talk 14:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Sullivan's best known contrapuntal device was "the simultaneous presentation of two or more distinct melodies previously heard independently"." Hughes again. As counterpoint is in any case the simultaneous presentation of melodies, I think the point here is that Sullivan was good at taking different melodic strains that had been presented independently and whose combination could not have been foreseen by their auditors, and presenting them simultaneously through counterpoint. It is the unexpectedness of the combination which is Sullivan's 'device' and struck (and continues to strike) audiences, not the technical counterpoint itself. Furthermore 'best-known' by itself requires evidence. So maybe the sentence should simply read something like "One of Sullivan's noted devices was "the simultaneous presentation of...." Phew, got that off my chest.

Tim?

Done. This is what Hughes has to say about antecedents: "We must now turn to a discussion of Sullivan's speciality — the simultaneous presentation of two or more distinct melodies previously heard independently. He liked to think that he had invented this device, and so far as its use for dram8atic contrast is concerned the claim was possibly justified. Purists may point to the ballroom scene from Don Giovanni, the quartet from Rigoletto and the overture to Die Meistersinger. But Mozart's stage orchestras are mere background and the little tunes they play have no special significance ; with Verdi it was essentially a matter of characterisation ; Wagner's tour de force demonstrates unity rather than conflict."

• Ta muchly. --Smerus (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Musical quotations and parodies

• As per my comment on 'harmony and counterpoint' above, quotation and reference was of the essence in the victorian pastiche tradition on which the Savoy Operas capitalised. I can't see any purpose in listing the references one by one in this article (though it may be appropriate in the articles on the operas themselves). What is needed is an explanation of the tradition and something like "Amongst the many composers whom Sullivan referenced in his music are X (example), Y (example) and Z (example). Other composers include A, B, C and D." Or whatever. Anyway, this very extensive listing -which is I think rather forbidding to the common reader - could be boiled down.

Yes, I see what you mean. I'll wait to see if other reviewers express a view on this, but I think I'll probably trim on the lines you suggest. Tim riley talk 17:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that, generally, this section is too long, and some pruning of the least essential examples would tend to make it more readable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

More anon - Smerus (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Most of the music comments are in Tim's bailiwick, so I'll let him take first crack at them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I've expanded a couple of the points above in the hope of making myself clearer. There's a further issue - the article doesn't provide much hint of musical influences on Sullivan (other than his parodies or imitations). There ought I think to be something about Mendelssohn, whose spirit infused all English composers of Sullivan's generation. E.g. What Charles Rosen rather unkindly called Mendelssohn's "religious kitsch" mode can clearly be found imo in 'The Long Day Closes' and 'The Lost Chord'.Smerus (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking about Mendelssohn's influence a day or so ago. I had quite forgotten that when Sullivan's break-through work, the Tempest music was premiered, the influence of Mendelssohn was widely remarked upon. Hughes does not miss the point: "Although Sullivan grew up during the heyday of Mendelssohn-worship in this country and emulated him in many ways (especially delicacy of orchestration), in the first few operas he rarely lapsed into those harmonic clichés which mar some of Mendelssohn's more sentimental effusions". Young comments that Sullivan "never completely managed to disguise his early affection for Mendelssohn". In Ian Bradly's 2015 Lost Chords and Christian Soldiers: The Sacred Music of Sir Arthur Sullivan, according to a reviewer, "The crucial impact of Felix Mendelssohn on the religious tone of Victorian music, including Sullivan’s, is beautifully addressed", and I'll make sure to order that book at the BL too. Tim riley talk 14:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Plus Scottish symphony/Irish symphony. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Great, looks like there's a fair amount on this that cd be used. --Smerus (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat

Lead

• The first three sentences of para three start "In 1866 ... In 1871 ... In 1875..." A bit of variety would break up the list-y feel

Fixed, unless Tim or anyone has a better fix. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Beginnings

• "Sullivan, then aged 11, persuaded his parents and the headmaster to allow him to apply for membership in the choir of the Chapel Royal.[8] Despite concerns that Sullivan at nearly 12 years of age" You can lose one of the ages (probably "then aged 11")

Done, per Wehwalt's comments above. See if you like the new version. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Rising composer

• "The Times called it…" I'm sure it didn't: a reviewer or journalist would have done, not the inanimate object (and the full stop should be outside the quote mark, as this isn't a full sentence).

Added "reviewer". Are we sure about the LQ issue? -- I thought that, as long as the quote actually ends in a full stop, and the extract is more than just a dependent clause, it should be inside. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind the revised version at all, but on the general point I don't agree with SchroCat that The Times can't call something something, if you see what I mean. Being inanimate doesn't make it mute. I think "The Times (or the BBC, or Grove's Dictionary etc) called so-and-so such-and-such" is absolutely OK. So there! Tim riley talk 17:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• "the autumn of 1867..." Per WP:SEASON we should either give a month, or some other descriptor that isn't a season

It was late Sept. to Oct., the very essence of autumn. WP:SEASON is a dumb rule meant to make Australians feel warm and fuzzy. To comply with it, I have now made a change that certainly makes the sentence worse but at least not longer. Everyone know what autumn refers to when one writes about Englishmen travelling in Europe. Tim, should we change it back? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I've redrawn the sentence to avoid the problem, though perhaps my "of that year" would be better as "of the same year?" Tim riley talk 17:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Shorter is better. Does Brit. English style require us to use "of"? If not, let's delete that word. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

1870s

• "Also in 1870, Sullivan met Gilbert..." A bit casual for one of the most fruitful partnerships in musical theatre!

Changes made, as noted above. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

More to follow soonest – SchroCat (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for these. Looking forward to more! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

1870s

• "Birmingham Festival in 1870.[n 4] Also in 1870," perhaps the second 1870 could be "In the same year"?

Done! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• "The Daily Telegraph" should be "The Daily Telegraph"

Done! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• As the Times and Telegraph are linked, you should probably do the same for The New York Times

Done! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

All fine down to the Music section, which I shall look at later. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

As you poo-pooed my thoughts on inanimate objects writing things(!), I won't press the point any further, except to say there are other instances of it—just in case any other reviewers agree with me.

Early reception

• "Peter Gammond writes...": "The music critic Peter Gammond writes..."? There are a number of

This follows a sentence about critics. Tim? -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Knighthood and later years

• "the Daily Telegraph's review" should be "The Daily Telegraph's review"

Now fixed, yes? -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Posthumous reputation

• Frank Howes, music critic of The Times condemned Sullivan – perhaps a comma after "The Times" to close the subordinate clause?

Done! -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

That's it from me, although I'd be tempted to use some definite articles in the penultimate sentence, but I leave that to your discretion. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Definite articles added! Thanks for all the excellent comments! -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton

I see that the youthful Boulton contributed a huge review to the 2008 PR. This time i shall be much briefer. The article has undergone a substantial rewrite by two experts in the G & S genre, and I have every confidence in their ability to do the old boy justice. Here are my brief comments on the "Life" material – I haven't checked whether I'm duplicating points raised by other peer-reviewers. I won't be able to get to the "Music" sections for a few days yet, and if you want to close the review meantime, I'm happy to pick things up again at FAC.

Thanks, Brian. We *definitely* want your comments on the music sections, as they are, if anything, trickier to get right. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Lead

• I wonder if it's necessary, in the second paragraph, to list so many of Sullivan's early and largely forgotten works by name? is this information truly leadworthy?

What do you think, Tim? Can we drop, say, the In Memoriam, the Festival Te Deum, and/or The Light of the World, a major recording of which is imminent? Or should we say: "a ballet, a symphony, a concerto, overtures and an oratorio"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I should welcome such a pruning. Tim riley talk 18:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'd prefer "held conducting and academic appointments" to "had..." etc

Oh, gosh yes! Thank you! Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• The reference to Ivanhoe as Sullivan's "only serious opera" could imply that his other operatic works were insubstantial or trivial. Later in the text you describe Ivanhoe as Sullivan's only "grand opera", and this wording might be a better characterisation of this work in the Sullivan oeuvre.

The problem is that Ivanhoe is not, technically, a "grand opera", in the narrowest sense. Nearly all of the others are definitely comic operas. Ivanhoe is a full-length "serious" romantic opera. I don't think that the text implies that the others were insubstantial, but maybe I've just read it too many times. Tim? Others? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The first words of the Oxford Companion to Music's article on grand opera are, "In common English usage, serious opera without spoken dialogue", and if opera buffs want to insist that it means bloated multi-act historical epics with a knees-up in the last act, let them eat cake! (Most of that, bar the ballet, applies to Ivanhoe anyway.) And let them get it right, too, and spell what they are talking about "grand opéra" with the acute accent. Here is the complete entry in the Oxford Dictionary of Music: "Grand Opera. Imprecise term, generally taken to mean either (a) opera in which every note of the lib. is sung, i.e. no spoken dialogue, or (b) 'serious' opera as distinct from operetta. Grand opéra (Fr.) means an epic or historical work in 4 or 5 acts, using large orch., the ch. and incl. a ballet." Let's call Ivanhoe a "grand opera" and have done with it. Tim riley talk 09:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Now changed to "grand" opera, except where used in quotes. It seems that Sullivan and his contemporaries referred to it as a "serious opera". -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Beginnings

• The sentence beginning "Despite concerns that Sullivan..." needs further polishing. With two "ands", it presently reads rather clumsily.

I broke the sentence into two and made another adjustment. Looks ok now? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Mendelssohn scholar

• I'd rather see Jacobs described as "his biographer" than "the biographer". Jacobs wrote a lot that wasn't biography.

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Could you look again at the sentence beginning "The academy renewed..." which again suffers from two "ands" and could perhaps be beneficially split.

Done! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Was the first London performance of The Tempest truly a "sensation"? That's a very strong word, and if it's to be used I think it needs a specific attribution.

Lawrence, who is cited a sentence later states "The success which attended the "Tempest" music, when it was produced at a Crystal Palace Concert on the composer's return to London in 1862, was immediate and emphatic" The Times review was farily enthusiastic. The G&S Discography calls it a "sensation". So did Pearson. What do you think, Tim? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd stoutly defend the word "sensation" here. This is how Sullivan, by then established and prosperous, recalled it:

"Early in 1862 I showed Sir George Grove and Mr. Manns the Tempest music I had composed at Leipzig. They decided to give it at one of their concerts. It was performed on Saturday, April 5th, 1862. This was the great day of my life! It is no exaggeration to say that I woke up the next morning and found myself famous. The papers, one and all, gave me most favourable notices, and the success was so great that the Tempest music was repeated on the following Saturday. All musical London went down to the Crystal Palace to hear this second performance. After it was over, Charles Dickens, who had gone down with Chorley to hear it, met me as I came out of the artists' room; he seized my hand with his iron grip and said: 'I don't pretend to know much about music, but I do know that I have been listening to a very great work.'" Tim riley talk 09:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not attacking the word, merely saying that, in an encyclopedia of studied neutrality, the term (or equivalent text) should be attributed. Brianboulton (talk) 11:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Tim, would you please add another ref to the sentence? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Will do, probably tomorrow. Tim riley talk 18:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

And now done. Tim riley talk 22:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Rising composer

• "he had an early chance..." – presumably he took it, so perhaps "he took an early chance"?

"took a chance" means "took a risk" to American readers, so I'd rather not say that. I've modified the sentence, starting "He composed several pieces for royalty...", but it seems very boring compared with what was there. Tim, or anyone, can you come up with a more exciting turn of phrase? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps replace "chance" with "opportunity", e.g. "he took an early opportunity"? Brianboulton (talk) 11:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Done! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• Lesley Baily records (p.33 in my edition) that in 1862, Sullivan met Rossini in Paris. According to Baily, Sullivan said afterwards: "I think Rossini first inspired me with a love for the stage and things operatic". This seems a significant observation, and is surely worth a mention?

Baily is unreliable and is known to have made up many of the anecdotes in his book. This statement has a certain smell to it. Jacobs quotes Sullivan's diary at length about the visit, and Sullivan says nothing of the kind in the diary entry, although he found old Rossini charming. Jacobs does note that Rossini, like Frederic in The Pirates of Penzance, was born on leap day. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Nevertheless, Sullivan did meet Rossini in Paris, and it seems got to know him quite well. This has a lot of information in it, apparently in Sullivan's words. It doesn't include Baily's quote, but does describe the two playing piano duets of The Tempest music, which Baily mentions, and much else besides. I would have thought at least a brief mention in the article of an acquaintance would be worth while. I'm also a bit worried by the statement "Baily is unreliable", since he's listed as a source and cited several times, which makes life difficult for me if/when I do a sources review! Brianboulton (talk) 11:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Sullivan met nearly every notable composer of the late 19th century. I think it would be simply name-dropping to mention this. We barely mention Sullivan's life-long friendship with the future King Edward and his brother, do not mention his lifelong relationships with his maid and valet. I think that Bailey can be relied upon to quote other publications accurately, but not for his anecdotes. He is entirely superseded by Jacobs and Ainger, so I do think it would be good to replace the Bailey cites with the later two, where convenient, Tim. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

It would be a good idea, on the whole. I think we only use Baily here when he's quoting someone else, and in such cases he's entirely reliable, but as he is known to have indulged in a lot of author's licence elsewhere in his book, he may be seen by some as suspect, and I daresay I can find the same comments in Young, or Jacobs or Ainger or other solid source. I'll do so before we get to FAC. Tim riley talk 16:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, regarding Rossini, up to a point... The point being that while in his pomp Sullivan would indeed have rubbed shoulders with most or all of the composers of his day, he met Rossini right at the beginning of his career, when he was 20 and almost completely unknown. And Rossini was from another era, a legendary figure born in the 18th century. This would surely have been a major event in the young Sullivan's life, and I think it's a pity not to mention it at all. Brianboulton (talk) 10:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

In The Cambridge Companion, Meinhard Saremba says this (p. 57): After their first encounter in December 1862, Sullivan met Gioacchino Rossini whenever he went to Paris. As Rossini's output encompasses almost as many dramatic as comic works, he inspired Sullivan's compositions for music theatre in the widest sense. From April to July 1863 Sullivan learned more about the stage when he worked at Covent Garden, which had, among other pieces, Rossini's Guillaume Tell in the repertoire. Comic opera and dramatic works plus opera on a grand scale based on national topics — even at a time when his reputation was limited — Rossini's output remained the model for Sullivan's career and music, as evidenced in several rhythmic patterns and constructions of long finales. I am drawing on the last bit of this for the Influences subsection we are writing following Smerus's suggestion, and we could also draw on it to corroborate the sometimes inventive Baily. Tim riley talk 18:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

That seems a reasonable proposition to which I think your client co-writer may agree. Brianboulton (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, but I submit, m'lud, that since most people will complain that the article is too long, we must do our utmost to keep it concise. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

1870s

• "an additional 12 operas" → "a further twelve operas"

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

1880s

• Nothing

1890s

• I'm intrigued by "going so far as to testify erroneously as to certain old debts". This is cryptic – to what does it refer?

Sullivan signed an affidavit in support of Carte that was erroneous, and Sullivan must have known that he was testifying to facts that, at the very least, he did not know to be true. After 20 years of friendship, Gilbert was, understandably and, IMO, justifiably, angered by this above all else. Are you suggesting that a change should be made regarding what Sullivan testified to? It's such technical accounting and legal-de-gook that even I find it tedious, and I'm a lawyer! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Obviously we don't need the legal history, but rather than prick the reader's curiosity, perhaps something neutral like: "Sullivan signed an affidavit siding with Carte"? Brianboulton (talk) 11:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• Perhaps clarify that the £250,000 from "The Absent-Minded Beggar" was the sum raised for charity. It's also worth noting that using the Bank of England's inflation calculator, this sum is worth almost £30 million in today's terms – an enormous amount.

First part done. Tim, can you add the currency converter thingy? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Death, honours etc

• The third paragraph begins with a verbatim copy from the lead, summarising Sullivan's output. The summary includes "piano and chamber pieces", but there are no references in the text to works of this nature. What were they, and when composed?

I'll let Tim handle this, but here is a list of some piano and chamber music, mostly from the 1860s. I think people still play "Twilight" and a few others. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I've added a few words at the start of the Music section. The piano and chamber works are all from the 1860s or earlier and (Young and Jacobs both say) are Mendelssohnian. Even in these days when it seems that every note every composer ever put on paper is recorded for CD nobody seems have thought it worthwhile recording any of this part of Sullivan's œuvre, which may or may be an indication of their importance. Tim riley talk 10:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Romantic life

• "In his diary, he referred to her as "Mrs. Ronalds" when he saw her in a public setting, but "L. W." (for "Little Woman") or "D. H." (possibly "Dear Heart") when they were alone together, often marked to indicate the number of sexual acts completed". A fascinating sentence, but I can't quite grasp it syntactically. "When he saw her" and "when they were alone together" don't go with "In his diary", and the final clause doesn't integrate with the rest. So a little rewriting would be advisable. Incidentally, I'm tickled that old Sullivan kept a scoreboard of his successful nookies. I thought I was the only one who did that.

I'll let Tim adjust, but the idea is that he would write in the diary: "I saw Mrs. R. at the ballet" and "retired upstairs with D. H. – magnificent night! (2)" -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"Madeira, m'dear" – "and he said as he secretly carved one more notch on the butt of his gold-handled cane....". How about: In his diary, she appears as "Mrs. Ronalds" when in a public setting, and "L. W." (for "Little Woman") or "D. H." (possibly "Dear Heart") when they were alone together. When noting their private meetings, Sullivan was given to indicating the number of sexual acts completed.?

I'd slightly vary this, to read: "when referring to meetings in a public settng..." and "for when they were alone together" (query: is it possible to be "alone together"?) Brianboulton (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Gilbert certainly thought it was possible: "When alone together, Two loving hearts and those that bear them, May join in temporary tether" (Gondoliers). And I refer my Rt. Hon friend to Alone Together. But the suggested tweaks are just right, thank you. Tim riley talk 21:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Compromise attempted. I definitely dislike the idiomatic "given to." We *could* put the marking of the sex acts into a footnote, if you wish to shorten the main text. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Footnoted as suggested. Works well, I think. Tim riley talk 22:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Will try to revisit for the rest – if not, on to FAC Brianboulton (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for these points, BB. We shall enjoy working through them. I shall be mightily surprised if we close the PR and leg it to FAC without waiting for your thoughts on the music section: Ssilvers and I have set no target timetable. Tim riley talk 18:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

What he said! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

BB comments on Music, Reception and Recordings sections

Music - preamble

• You could lose the unnecessary "In all" that leads the text
  • Indeed. Lost. Tim riley talk 17:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Influences

• You have "to some degree" and "to some extent" close together in the second line, followed in the third by "in some ways". A little more variatiuon in expression, perhaps?
  • I sometimes think I'm going barmy. I could swear I'd already fixed that! Now done, anyhow. Tim riley talk 17:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
• Could you add a year for the Spy cartoon?
  • Done. Tim riley talk 17:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
• Just as an aside: you mention Wagner's influence evident in the Yeomen overture. I've always thought the strongest Wagner influence in the operas is shown in the Entrance of the Peers from Iolanthe, which I think closely relates to the Entry of the Guests in Tannhauser. Does any analyst mention this, or is it just my POV?
  • I hadn't thought of that. Worth a little bit of rummaging, I think, and I'll make a note to do it. Tim riley talk 17:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Method

• Are the final two sentences relevant to this section?
  • No. Now removed. Tim riley talk 17:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Orchestration

• Hughes re-acquires his forename
  • Now un-re-acquired. Tim riley talk 17:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
• Two adjacent adverbs ("technically highly") reads rather clumsily
  • Quite so. Amended. Tim riley talk 17:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Recordings

• It was fascinating to hear the voice of Sullivan.
• I'm not sure all the historical recordings detail is necessary, and if you are looking to trim there may be some room here. Perhaps there is a separate article/list to be made here?
  • Shall confer with my co-conspirator. Tim riley talk 17:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

That's me done. I have very much enjoyed this evocative trip into Sullivan-land and look forward to monitoring the article's further progress. Brianboulton (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Brian. I think we are nearing the end of this PR (though there are still a few comments to come from others, I think and hope) and it has been a particularly stimulating one. Warmest thanks for your contributions. Tim riley talk 17:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment transferred from Tim's talk page

An editor, DBak, has kindly left a one-off comment, and I am copying the gist of it, and my answer, here.

Q. At the end of the second paragraph in the lead, you have: He supplemented his income by working as a church organist and music teacher, and by writing hymns, parlour ballads and other light pieces. This reads very slightly oddly to me because I am not sure what income he is supplementing - has he by then become a professional composer and so it is his serious compositional income needs supplementing? Or is he still a student or has a paper round or is juggling in Covent Garden? Now, later on the article it all becomes perfectly clear. This is because you say, around the end of "Mendelssohn scholar" and the start of "Rising composer", that he is working as a composer and that he's earning extra with his organ (as it were) or in teaching an ting. Is it possible, or necessary, do you think, to get something along those lines into the lead so that it is clear that, whilst the income we're talking about isn't enough, it is real, and is his - if you like - main income from his intended career as a composer?

A. (by me) How would this sentence be instead of the existing text: He supplemented the income from his concert works by writing hymns, parlour ballads and other light pieces, and working as a church organist and music teacher.? If that looks OK I'll float it in the PR page.

DBak thinks this is OK. Ssilvers and other contributors: does this look suitable? Tim riley talk 18:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments on 'reputation and Criticism' (Smerus)

Posthumous reputation

• I suggest caption on the cartoon illustration should read "Early 20th century audiences"

The image, though drawn in 1921, is included to suggest the ongoing popularity of the operas as a family entertainment throughout the 20th century, so I think it's helpful and fair to generalize. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• The Nigel Burton quote is nearly twenty years old - anything more recent?

2000 is pretty recent in terms of Sullivan scholarship. There was a burst of Sullivan scholarship in the 2nd half of the 20th century, but in this century, most of the Sullivan activity has been concentrated on getting out higher quality recordings of Sullivan's (non-G&S) works. Other than liner notes, not that much new musical scholarship has really caught on, though Tim may come up with some more. The Sir Arthur Sullivan Society and various other appreciation groups publish G&S journals, but much of the content is along the lines of "Obituary for Thomas Round", or "George Grossmith's house in Cornwall". Tim is checking on a recent book, and he may have run across some more recent journal articles that contain analysis, etc. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• The article details recordings and performances of the non-Savoy works, but the fact is I think that apart from the Savoy operas (and only maybe half of those) - and maybe some of the works for choir such as "The Long Day Closes" - S's work is virtually never performed in concert today. I suggested above that the 'Legacy' sub-section at the end of the 'Life' section be moved down here and reworked. I don't in fact think that, as the legacy section claims, S's operas are 'frequently performed' any more. But this is interesting in the context.

I'll let Tim address this, but there are a number of professional touring companies that constantly perform G&S, in the UK, US and Australia, for example NYGASP and Opera North, that are not included on the list of opera companies that you linked to, and they often do the other G&S operas (besides PiraMikaFore). Plus, there are still hundreds of semi-pro, community and university G&S companies that do G&S every year throughout the English speaking world and beyond. This year the G&S Festival had a Portuguese production, and it often has one or two such offerings. I saw that a Sullivan production is being given in Russia this year. So, I think it is fair to characterize it as "frequent". -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• If you do expand the legacy section by the way, do think of mentioning G&S in Yiddish which seem to have had a good run in the States at one time.

I am quite familiar with the Yiddish productions. They were all (very) amateur except one Pirates, done by National Yiddish Theater Folksbiene briefly in 2006. NYGASP, on the other hand, has been playing G&S in NY, often at New York City Center, and on tour in major venues, for more than 40 years, and has given several thousand performances of all 13 extant G&S operas. The International G&S Festival is also very much more significant than the Yiddish productions. G&S has also been given in numerous other languages. A professional(ish) Estonian group gave several. But the G&S article would probably be a better place to describe more of those, if that's what we want to do. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Er, that's it. Generally a very comprehensive article, but I think maybe too sensitive about S's declining reputation. Let's hope the ENO Iolanthe next year can raise interest as Miller's 'Mikado' did - now that production surely merits being mentioned in a legacy section?

Miller's production was revived many times, but again, it's just one example that G&S is still being widely and frequently performed. What about the recent, successful Opera North productions, Opera Della Luna, the Sasha Regan productions, the National Gilbert & Sullivan Opera Company tours, as well as NYGASP, Lamplighters Opera, Seattle G&S and all the other G&S rep companies? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd also add the wonderful Patience from English Touring Opera this year and Mike Leigh's Pirates for ENO. I have tickets for the ENO Iolanthe, though I fear the worst. Well, not quite the worst: Ken Russell's Princess Ida for ENO set a target at which all other aspirants to awfulness will shoot in vain. Tim riley talk 21:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I thought we were trying to keep the article concise? Discussing particular productions, except Papp's Pirates, which was the longest G&S production in history, ought to be done, if at all, in the G&S article rather than here, surely? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Good grief! I didn't mean adding them to the article: I was just adding them here, as corroborative detail intended to show that there are lots of G&S productions still around. Tim riley talk 22:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah! Quite. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

--Smerus (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all your comments. We will keep working on them, as well as the others, and your assistance will help us to bring a much better article to FAC! All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Afterthought (Smerus)

I woke up this morning thinking "They need somewhere to mention Topsy-Turvy" - either in a Legacy section or somewhere in the stuff about S's relationship with Gilbert. Apologies, --Smerus (talk) 09:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

It is so kind of you to keep this review in mind. Point wholly taken. Tim riley talk 15:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

And now attended to. Tim riley talk 11:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Closing peer review

This has been a particularly productive and helpful review, and we are most grateful to everyone who has been kind enough to contribute. We're away to FAC shortly, where perhaps we shall have the pleasure of your company again. Tim riley talk 11:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you to all of you who helped us tighten up this article. For both of us, it is a labor of love that we have put off too long. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)