Talk:Rupert D'Oyly Carte/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: María ( habla con migo ) 21:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I'll be reviewing this article for GA-status over the next couple days. Most of the article is quite good, as I've come to expect from the main contributors. I don't think it will have any issues passing, as I only have minor comments and concerns, mainly dealing with the prose. See below for specifics.


 * Lead
 * The new productions generally retained the original text and music of the operas, and Carte required all licensees of the works to present them in approved productions that closely followed the libretto, score and D'Oyly Carte production stagings. -- I'm not too knowledgeable in these matters, but this summary of the new productions seems overly detailed; I got lost somewhere around his requiring the licensees to yadda yadda. Would it be simpler to say that Carte valued presenting them in approved productions that closely followed, etc, etc?
 * Good point. I moved the detailed info down to the body of the article and rephrased.  What I mean is that he did not allow any changes to the words or music, and pretty much retained the staging unchanged, except in two cases that are discussed below. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Carte launched international tours, as well as the London seasons and provincial tours, and he released complete recordings of the operas. He also rebuilt the Savoy Theatre in 1929. These sentences could flow better: "tours... tours" is repetitive, and the correlation/importance of the recordings in relation to the tours isn't made clear. How were these two notable?  Also, I had to refresh my memory as to why the Savoy had to be rebuilt, because no context is given here.  Could a little more detail be given?
 * OK. Clearer now? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * P. G. Wodehouse based the character Psmith on a Wykehamist schoolboy whom he identified as Rupert D'Oyly Carte, although it may have been based on Rupert's elder brother, Lucas. Although this is mentioned in more detail later in the article, it seems random in the lead. Shouldn't there be more in the lead about his personal life, death and legacy?  Especially in regards to G&S?
 * OK, I added something about his death and legacy. I don't think we should mention his marriage/divorce in the lead.  His wife was not famous, or even interesting, even though she was the daughter of an Earl.  The PSmith character is pretty famous, and anyone who is a Wodehouse fan would definitely find it of interest.  Let me know if you think more changes should be made, or if you can figure out a better order for the info in the last paragraph.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, looks good, and I totally understand your reasoning. The "English-speaking world and beyond" is a little too theatrical for my tastes, but considering the subject matter, it makes sense. ;) María ( habla  con migo ) 17:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Early life
 * Rupert's older brother, Lucas (1872–1907), a barrister, was not involved in the family businesses and died of tuberculosis, aged 34. -- Since Lucas is mentioned in the previous paragraph, his name and dates should be mentioned earlier.
 * OK, done! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Taking over the family businesses
 * Between 1906 and 1909, Helen Carte,[3] Rupert's stepmother, staged two repertory seasons at the Savoy Theatre, directed by Gilbert, with much success, revitalising the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company, which had been in decline after his father's death. -- Pretty heavy on the commas, eh? Maybe break the sentence in two: "staged two successful repertory seasons at the Savoy Theatre. Directed by Gilbert, these shows (?) revitalized the D'Oyly... etc."?
 * OK, good idea. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In 1912, when theatre censorship was under discussion in Britain, Carte was strongly in favour of retaining it, because it gave managements complete certainty about what they could or could not stage without fear of interference by the police or others. -- The "it" here, although I'm guess it refers to the censorship, is slightly ambiguous.
 * OK, done! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

TBC... María ( habla con migo ) 21:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Picking back up, sorry for the wait!


 * Revitalising the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company
 * According to H. M. Walbrook... -- Could a short intro be given on Walbrook, for context? According to G&S biographer/expert, what have you?
 * I added "theatre writer". In addition to G&S, Walbrook wrote books on J. M. Barrie and other playwrights.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Carte's first London season, at the Prince's Theatre, 1919–20, featured ten of the Gilbert and Sullivan operas (all except Ruddigore, Utopia, Limited and The Grand Duke) -- This could use a little clean-up, as it's a bit jarring to read with the commas and parentheses.
 * I moved the three names to a footnote. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "It did not by any means imply any hidebound stage 'business' or an attempt to standardize the performances... -- is this the continuation of Carte's opinion, in his own words? If so, perhaps introduce it with "He continued/further stated" or something similar?
 * No, The Times does not seem to be directly quoting him, it's the writer's paraphrase or summary of what he said, I guess. I can only quote the paper accurately.  I made a change for your review, but I don't like it and would rather go back to how it was.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh, I agree it doesn't quite work, either, but neither does an unattributed quote. It's certainly not crucial, but something to consider, I suppose. María ( habla  con migo ) 22:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "He made several alternative suggestions, one of which we adopted in America, and it seems well to go on doing so in the British Empire." -- I'm just curious, but what was the alternative use adopted?
 * In The Mikado, where the title character lists "punishments that fit the crime", he sings that someone will be punished by being "blacked like a n...", the suggested change is "painted with vigour".  Where another character lists people who "never would be missed" if they were executed (for example, people who eat peppermint and puff it in your face), he refers to a "n... serenader", they changed it to "banjo serenader".  But that song is now often significantly rewritten to include topical jokes.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fascinating! I've actually never seen The Mikado, so thanks for indulging me. :) María ( habla  con migo ) 22:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Rebuilding the Savoy Theatre and later years
 * This section seems to take a step backwards, as it doubles back to the 1920s. While here it's not as confusing (see comment below), I think this is where the break is first noticeable.
 * I made some changes to simplify the chronology in the previous paragraphs. IMO, we have not really left the 1920s yet. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Carte was deeply affected by the death of his son Michael in 1932. -- This is confusing; Michael is first "introduced" several paragraphs below, in the "Personal life" section, and yet here he is dead. Shouldn't Carte's marriage and family be mentioned prior to this?
 * I think it makes sense to keep the personal life section together the way we have it. I really think it would be a serious problem to try to move it higher and break up the main "career" section.  I added "discussed below".  -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool, that helps. María ( habla con migo ) 22:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "The heart dropped right out of him. His interest in both the operas and the hotel seemed to fade away." -- Who is this quote from?
 * Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Savoy Hotel group
 * Similar to my comments above, this section splits an awful lot with the established chronology; to go from 1947 back to 1919 is very confusing and jarring -- for me. I'm not sure if dividing Carte's successes by venture, and then putting each section into separate chronological order, is quite working here -- the article begins with his birth and ends with his death, but in between some things become mixed up and muddled.  Again, this might just be me talking, so please feel free to disagree; I'm open to being won over!  As long as some things are made clearer, I see no huge issue here.
 * Sorry, but I really disagree. Carte is best known for the opera company, although the hotel group was very profitable.  I really think it makes much more sense to keep all the information about the hotel group together in this way.  It would be very messy to keep saying, "meanwhile, carte built a new restaurant in the Hotel" along the way.  At the end of the "Rebuilding the Savoy Theatre" section, we have finished with Carte as the proprietor of the opera company.  Then we describe his hotel interests and his personal life.  It seems very simple and sensible to me.  This structure was designed by User:Tim riley, and I really think it's just right.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I totally understand, and won't push the issue at this point. Upon re-reading some of the article, I still think it's a little too disjointed for me, but I can see now how most of it fits together, separately. María ( habla  con migo ) 22:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The Savoy Orpheans and the Savoy Havana Band were described as "probably the best-known bands in Europe". -- Described by whom?
 * Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "We are endeavouring by intensive propaganda work to get more customers; this work is going on in the U.S.A., in Canada, in the Argentine and in Europe." -- Was this Carte or George Reeves-Smith speaking/writing?
 * Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that about does it. The only thing I take issue with is the chronological discrepancies between several sections, but as I said above, it's not too big a deal. And, again, I just may be too set in my ways. :) Everything else is great: the article is short but entirely comprehensive it seems, the sources are well formatted, the images are fine, and of course a majority of it is very well written.  Address the above concerns, and I'll be happy to promote. María ( habla  con migo ) 17:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Most of my concerns have been addressed, or else explained away, so I'm happy to promote this article to GA-status. Great job, guys! 22:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all your hard work and excellent comments, Maria! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)