Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Arthur Sullivan/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2017.

Arthur Sullivan

 * Nominator(s): Ssilvers (talk) and  Tim riley  talk    11:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

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 has just had a particularly thorough and helpful peer review – our warm thanks to colleagues who contributed – and we now think it is ready for consideration as a Featured Article. – Ssilvers (talk) and  Tim riley  talk    11:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Image review Nikkimaria, please let us know if we've resolved all the image questions satisfactorily now. Thanks so much for doing the review! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Sir_Arthur_Seymour_Sullivan.jpg: what is the author's date of death?
 * I'm afraid we don't know. Ellis and Walery was a well-known partnership (or possibly company) but I don't think anyone knows if this photo was taken by Ellis, Walery or an employee. If there is a problem with it on Commons we can easily show that it was published in the UK before 1923 (it was the standard image of Sullivan used in books and journals) and put it on en.wiki instead.  Tim riley  talk    16:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Would it meet the criteria of PD-UK-unknown? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * On the face of it, I think so, but I don't know if a partnership/company is covered by that.  Tim riley  talk    21:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Ellis & Walery published the image, but it was taken in the 1880s, *before* they formed their partnership; they (or the Walery gallery) must have purchased it to reproduce or reproduced it on behalf of Sir Arthur. This was probably first used as a carte-de-visit by Sullivan himself in the 1880s, and the photographer is definitely "unknown". -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay. Suggest swapping in the UK-unknown tag, with that explanation of why the authorship is unknown. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Tim, please check my update of the description and source on the Image page, and adjust if necessary. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks spot-on to me.  Tim riley  talk    14:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Arthur-sullivan-circa-1855.jpg needs a US PD tag
 * Done, I hope satisfactorily.  Tim riley  talk    16:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Arthur_Sullivan,_The_Lost_Chord,_Reed_Miller_1913_(restored_1).ogg: if the singer lived until 1923, you can't use a life+100 tag for the recording until 2024
 * Ss - may I leave the sound files to you? I am even less clued up about them than I am about image files.  Tim riley  talk    16:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I changed this to a life+70 tag, which is all that is required for Britain. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Arthur_Sullivan,_conductor,_by_Lyall.jpg: if we're using a URAA tag that states the image is PD in its country of origin, we should include a tag indicating why the image is PD in its country of origin
 * Tag added: the appropriate one, I think (and hope)  Tim riley  talk    16:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Chieftain_poster_1894.jpg: source link is dead
 * Rectified.  Tim riley  talk    16:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * File:If-you-go-in-verse-refrain.tif and File:Mikado-trio.tif should include an explicit copyright tag for the original works
 * For the writing or the printing? (Though in fact they are the same within a matter of months)?  Tim riley  talk    16:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Were the music and lyrics copyrighted separately? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not specifically, as far as I know. I don't think (though I may be horribly wrong) there was any specific register of copyright in 1880s England. Iolanthe was premiered and its libretto and score (piano version, as used here) published in 1882; ditto for The Mikado in 1885.   Tim riley  talk    21:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, tag based on the first publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that: now done.  Tim riley  talk    14:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Sullivan-1870.jpg: if the author died in 1918, we can't use a life+100 tag until 2019
 * Should it be on Commons at all? Ought it to be an en.wiki file?  Tim riley  talk    16:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Where was the card published? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Britain, and almost certainly London. Sullivan was not internationally famous as early as that.  Tim riley  talk    21:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've changed it to life+70, which is all that is required for Britain. For US, Nikkimaria, isn't there a tag we use when an unpublished image was taken more than 120 years ago?
 * Are you thinking of PD-US-unpublished? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks! Now added. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Arthur_Sullivan_-_wax_cylinder_recording.ogg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ss - may I leave this to you?  Tim riley  talk    16:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed! Now I feel useful! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Wehwalt
Support per my comments at the peer review, here.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, Wehwalt, for support here and input at PR. Both greatly appreciated.  Tim riley  talk    17:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Smerus
Support - peer review was pretty comprehensive and all my points were dealt with (and mostly to my satisfaction :-)). Eminently worthy for FA, is the opinion of this highly susceptible editor.--Smerus (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Smerus, thank you so much for input at PR – you certainly put us through our paces – and your support here.  Tim riley  talk    19:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from John

 * Comment It's looking great; I made a few wee nips and tucks which I hope you won't object to. There might be a few others; "excruciating"? One request; although it's no longer a FA requirement, I like to see alt-text on images for the benefit of users of screen readers. Would that be possible? --John (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added alt-text. Would you be so kind, John, as to review it and either make any adjustments needed, or let me know if you see any problems with the alt text? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Rather cross with myself for missing that. It's something I habitually check on when reviewing other people's nominations. I discussed it with a blind editor who told me how important alt-text is and gave me tips on making it concise but helpful.  Tim riley  talk    08:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * C sharp minor, rather than C# minor? --John (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure which is more "encyclopedic". Tim? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You'll see both employed in WP articles. Unlike Grove we haven't got a house style on this. It does matter, however, that the usage is consistent within any article, and I'll read through and make certain it is here.  Tim riley  talk    08:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Later: checked. All is well. No ♭ or ♯ signs in the text. There's only one "flat" (apart from the one in Victoria Street) and one "sharp", both spelled out. –  Tim riley  talk    09:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * He became friendly with the future impresario Carl Rosa and the violinist Joseph Joachim, among others. Are we worried that the reader may think he made no other friends in this time? I think we may safely omit the last two words, though I wouldn't oppose over this.
 * I think the last two words are needed, as these were only two of the famous musicians he met there. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I guessed that was what you meant, and I think it's certainly a lot better than it was when it said Among those with whom he became friendly were the future impresario Carl Rosa and the violinist Joseph Joachim. Wording like this always makes me think of a children's party which advertises "Biffo the Bear, Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, and more". I would favour naming them if they're noteworthy, and if not just taking it as read that of course he met loads of interesting people; he was a genius, after all, and they tend to attract each other. Third opinion? --John (talk) 07:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * On balance, stet, though I don't feel strongly on the matter.  Tim riley  talk    08:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Here are (most of) my edits so far. The only one which is other than minor is a slight shortening of the Legacy section, which seemed repetitious. --John (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, John. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Ssilvers. --John (talk) 07:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Great article, thank you for writing it. I now support. --John (talk) 14:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Jim
Very comprehensive and a good read. Two things you may want to consider Jimfbleak - talk to me?  07:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Two "best known"s in the first para.
 * Thank you very much for these comments, and your support. I fixed this first issue. -- Ssilvers (talk) 10:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * This is so much an a side issue that you can ignore it altogether, especially if it involves extra work. I just wondered if there is any obvious reason why the golden legend suddenly lost its popularity.
 * This is a good question, but our article on The Golden Legend answers it pretty well. Basically, after Sullivan's death, his critical reputation declined sharply, as we discuss here, and nearly all of his non-G&S music suffered from neglect. The G&S Discography quotes Arthur Jacobs as writing: "no work more cruelly illustrates the posthumous decline in Sullivan's reputation as a 'serious' composer". In addition, a new generation of composers, especially Edward Elgar, brought fresh new choral and orchestral works to the British musical scene that crowded out Romantic music.  The "Victorian soppiness" of the sentimental libretto is also partly blamed. It wasn't until Hyperion released the first (and I think only) professional recording of the work in 2001 that the public could give the music a fair hearing, but even that cannot rescue the libretto.  According to Robin Gordon-Powell, like other serious Sullivan pieces, The Golden Legend has been performed increasingly in recent decades, but not nearly as often as during Sullivan's lifetime, nor by many leading orchestras.  Given the blue-link to the work's own article, and the length of this article, I'm not sure we want to spend any ink on this here in the Sullivan article. Tim, what do you think? -- Ssilvers (talk) 10:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's fine, it was more idle curiosity that an actionable request anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me?  14:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from SchroCat

 * Support My concerns were dealt with at PR, and the article meets the FA criteria. – SchroCat (talk) 13:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Lingzhi

 * Sources missing Dunhill 1928. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I've added the source now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Good luck. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from DBaK
I'm delighted to support this interesting and well-constructed article. I have some very minor queries, which do not affect my support:
 * The Royal Aquarium came as a bit of a surprise to me. I wondered if the article would benefit at all from saying what it was in a word or two rather than making people click through to find that AS wasn't really conducting shoals of fish. Not a showstopper, though, if you would rather leave it as a bit of a "wait, what?" moment.
 * I added the word "Theatre". Does that work for you, Tim? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed it does.  Tim riley  talk    18:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I was not sure about the use of "fracture" for the problems in the G–S relationship. Maybe it's just my dialect of English but I wouldn't ever say that ... rift, schism, split, breach, conflict ... are those too wide/final-sounding? Even just disagreement? But YMMV.
 * I am an American, so I would also usually reach for a word like "rift", but we are writing in British usage for this article. "Fracture" certainly is more vivid than "split", conveying the pain involved, and I have no difficulty in understanding it. The G&S break-up was not just a conflict or disagreement, as the article explains; it was a painful break or fracture.  What do you think, Tim: "rift", or leave it as "fracture"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think all the contemplated nouns would do quite well, and I'm v. happy with what we now have.  Tim riley  talk    18:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * There's a very overprecise inflation figure where the original says "became an instant sensation and raised an unprecedented £300,000". At the moment the inflated figure shows as "equivalent to £30,991,659" but it really shouldn't, and ought to be rather more rounded, probably to £31,000,000 or £31M or whatever. But not all those figures, please.
 * This is an automatic currency translator that will adjust automatically over time. It is used frequently in WP.  But perhaps there is a better tool that you know of? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Finally, I find this awkward: "The sheet music for his best received songs sold in large numbers and were an important part of his income; many of them were adapted as dance pieces." The songs perhaps were, but the music was. It can't stay quite how it is; if you change were to was then the first chunk is OK but the second reads with more difficulty. I'd be tempted to rephrase it so everything is plural - you would then be talking about the songs and their effect and the medium, sheet music, would be less important and not dictate agreement. I'm sorry I can't quite suggest a model answer right now but I bet that a More Good With Word Person could. Oh, and if "best received" stays in, does it need a hyphen? I forget ...
 * Good catch. I've fixed this, and I moved the bit about the dance arrangements to a footnote, as those were actually a little later. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

...best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, very much, DBaK, and happy holidays to you! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the useful responses. For the inflation, you might try adding the r=N parameter for rounding so for example:


 * gives ""
 * gives ""
 * gives "" and
 * gives "" which looks the same now but won't always!
 * For the record, I am British but I would still never use "fracture" like that, and have no problem with "rift" ... not of crucial importance though! Cheers DBaK (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I added the rounding parameter. Thanks again! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Solo/solos
One more minor point. just did a little run of edits, most of which is excellent – sorting out "Sullivan" where it was ambiguous between Old Dad Sullivan and Little Pickle Arthur ... good stuff. However, I'm not sure about this one which changes this: During this first year at the academy Sullivan continued to sing solos with the Chapel Royal into this: During this first year at the academy Sullivan continued to sing solo with the Chapel Royal. My reasoning, speaking as a (cough) "musician" (well actually a brass player or rather someone who owns some brass instruments but please let's not split hairs here) is that "solos" sounds like he did a few tunes when picked out or requested or whatever, whereas solo sounds like he was actually appointed, which I don't think was the case. He was a singer who did some solos, but not in the role of Solo Singer, I think. Certainly, I was startled by the alteration, feeling it a substantial change in meaning. Does this resonate with anyone else or is it just my senile maunderings (again?? sheesh!). Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 09:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And don't think I'm over "fracture". Ha, not by a long chalk. I can bear a grudge as well as the next man ... revenge is a dish best eaten cold (with lots of custard), is all. Bwaaahahah! DBaK (talk) 09:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * He was appointed head chorister ("first boy") in 1856 (Jacobs, p. 12) and would thus have been the first choice for any treble solos, so I think either the singular or the plural is applicable, and will be happy with whichever we all decide on.  Tim riley  talk    10:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I prefer "solos". -- Ssilvers (talk) 10:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, both. I've looked again and especially at the First Boy bit a couple of paragraphs above the "solos" spot (duh!). I'm no longer sure that my objection is at all valid: just go with the consensus? Definitely not worth fisticuffs; shutting up now! Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 11:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from BB
Subject to resolution of sources matters below. I commented at peer review and have no further issues with the text. A significant article whose promotion will be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 12:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Brian, warmest thanks for your input at two peer reviews and here, and for your support. I can safely speak for both us in saying we are most grateful.  Tim riley  talk    13:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources review
Some ref numbers have changed since I started the review – I hope the numbers quoted below are current:
 * Ref 86: (StageBeauty.net) How is this a high quality, reliable source?
 * Deleted. Citation to Gaye does the job on its own.  Tim riley  talk    13:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Tim, I don't have Gaye, but I doubt that it confirms that this was the second-longest run in history (to that date). Can you confirm? The Gillan site was accepted in the Pinafore FAC.  Gillan is a published author and researched every musical theatre long run up to 1925. It is a valuable resource. Note that it is cited in various books. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine: by all means put it back in. I haven't got Gaye to hand this evening, not being at Riley Towers. If BB is happy with the Gillan page, then fine.  Tim riley  talk    21:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * FYI, here is part of the FAC for Pinafore:
 * I wrote: [Gillan's] non-profit, educational website provides extensive information about Victorian and Edwardian era theatre. It includes numerous biographies and picture galleries of actresses of the era, reprints of Victorian news items about the theatre, extensive postcard histories, and articles about historical subject of the era.  This part of the website is a unique compilation of information that he has gleaned from The Theatre magazine and presented in a convenient table format available nowhere else.  The website is praised here and linked to here and here, among other places. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This was so good a rebuttal that you now have your first G&S entry in my FAC cheatsheet, here! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ref 92: (NYT) link goes to a blank page
 * Mended.  Tim riley  talk    13:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ref 184: (Pietre-Stones) something wrong with the title as shown?
 * Repaired.  Tim riley  talk    13:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ref 216: (Pall Mall Gazette) You should add the "reproduced" note, per 183
 * Indeed. Now done.  Tim riley  talk    13:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ref 282: (Elgar) Currently returning "page not found". Check your url: I found the article here
 * Thanks for that. The ODNB has recently had a big revamp, carefully buggering up more URL links than this one. I've re-linked to the archive version, though I see that, inexplicably, no author is now credited for it. I propose to keep Maine's name in place nevertheless: I have a printed copy of the text (identical) in its previous archive manifestation, and his name is there all right.  Tim riley  talk    13:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ref 297: Says "Wolfson 1973", but the only Wolfson listed in sources is dated 1984 and has a different title. I can't find ant citations to the 1984 Wolfson, though note 25 mentions an undated Wolfson. Since note 25 is uncited, I reckon the answer is to add the citation here.
 * Yes. Done.  Tim riley  talk    13:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In the sources, Farrell is lacking publisher location.
 * Added.  Tim riley  talk    13:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise, all sources appear to in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 12:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for these points. All now addressed – I hope to your satisfaction.  Tim riley  talk    13:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks from me, too, Brian. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from JM
I'm very pressed for time at the moment, but I hope a few driveby comments will help in the article's development.
 * "a Symphony, a Cello Concerto (both 1866)" I'm not keen on this; I think you should either use "symphony" and "cello concerto" with links to our articles on the genres, "a symphony" and "a cello concerto" with links to the particular pieces, or spell out the names of the pieces in italics.
 * Thanks. Lower cased now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "hymns, parlour ballads and other light pieces" Links?
 * I've linked parlour ballads (although commenters in previous years have asked us to unlink it), but linking "hymn" would be Overlinking, I think, and "other light pieces" is described in more detail below. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "two cantatas" Link? Also for "Shakespeare" and "grand opera"?
 * Linked cantata and grand opera. Shakespeare is already linked in both the Lead and in the body of the article.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "By the waters of Babylon" Would Title Case be appropriate? You use it for other "songs" further down.
 * Done. Tim, please check to see if you think it's now consistent throughout. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A few minor tweaks made (pronouns in lc)  Tim riley  talk    09:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "of musical styles, including Schubert, Verdi, Bach and Wagner." Are Schubert etc. really "musical styles"?
 * Now changed to "musicians". -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Redrawn.  Tim riley  talk    09:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "His Irish Symphony and Cello Concerto" As before. I can't pretend to know much about the norms in academic writing about classical music, though!
 * I italicized these. Tim, please compare with the prev. instance and check my changes to the italics/quote marks for the various Overtures to see if you agree that we are consistent. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've always found sticking to the Manual of Style's music section a safe course, and have done so here. Titles readjusted where necessary.  Tim riley  talk    09:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "in those genres" How about "in their respective genres"? Again, this may be my problem...
 * This was changed per comments at Peer Review. I agree with you and would rather return to this.  Tim? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with you both, and have changed the wording.  Tim riley  talk    09:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "his Overture In Memoriam" Again. I'm now suspecting that I may be wrong, though I do note that you refer to "his overture Marmion" in the same way that I would!
 * All italicized now. Again, Tim, please check. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * MoS formatting now applied.  Tim riley  talk    09:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "promise that just at present we can boast."[33] In" Is this consistent with MOS:LQ?
 * The rule says "If the quotation is a full sentence and it coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, place terminal punctuation inside the closing quotation mark. If the quotation is a single word or fragment, place the terminal punctuation outside." It doesn't specifically discuss what to do if something is more than a fragment but less than a sentence. In this case, the long quoted passage is nearly a full sentence, missing only the word "It is" at the beginning, and the punctuation in the quoted text "coincides with the end of the sentence containing it". Does LQ still require the punctuation to be outside the quotation mark?  Please let me know if I am misinterpreting the spirit of the rule. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "Sullivan's most enduring orchestral work" I confess I'm not sure what this means.
 * It means that it is his "orchestral work" that continued to be performed most frequently through the 20th century and today, except that such a statement would be hard to prove. Hughes and other writers use the phrase "most enduring". Any ideas, Tim. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Though we have borrowed the word from Hughes, it is, I agree, not ideal. I can't for the moment think of a concise alternative, but will ponder. It's a good point.  Tim riley  talk    09:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "Onward, Christian Soldiers," Why italics? Would "Onward, Christian Soldiers" not be more appropriate?
 * Thanks! Good catch. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "and the oratorio, The Light of the World (Birmingham Festival, 1873)." Remove the comma? Alternatively, change "the" to "an"?
 * Done! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "The Daily Telegraph commented" I know some at FAC disagree with me, but I see this as unwarranted personification. How about "The Daily Telegraph's reviewer commented" or something?
 * Done! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this is complete nonsense, although the change does no actual harm other than adding needless verbiage.  Tim riley  talk    09:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "One wrote, "it" Why the comma? "One wrote that "it..." might work?
 * Done! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Changed back into good English. This is oratio recta, not obliqua. (I don't say I am never guilty of using a "that" before a direct quote, but it is better to refrain.)  Tim riley  talk    09:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "same brain."[71] A" Is this consistent with MOS:LQ?
 * An entire sentence is included in the quote, although an introductory clause is not included, so I think it is correct as is. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "song was "Orpheus with his Lute" (1866), and a well-received part song was "Oh! hush thee, my babie" (1867).[12] The best known of his songs is "The Lost Chord"" Apparently(?) inconsistent use of capitals in song titles.
 * Fixed. Please check, Tim. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * MoS changes applied.  Tim riley  talk    09:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "of a "national musical stage" ... free from" Why the ellipses?
 * Now blitzed, as Tim would say

Stopping there; hope to be back at some point! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Excellent comments, Josh Milburn!  Of course, my changes are subject to correction by Tim.  Looking forward to reading the rest!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, a few more minutes:
 * "Carte, "[I]t" Again, I find these commas really quite jarring.
 * What do others think? It looks better to me than adding "that" here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It is.  Tim riley  talk    09:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "an interviewer, ""The opera" Typo, I assume?
 * Thanks! Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "earnest still."[124] He" MOS:LQ?
 * Fixed -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "episode "the strangest comingling of success and failure ever chronicled in the history of British lyric enterprise!"" Would it perhaps be better not to preserve the exclamation mark, and instead go for "enterprise"."?
 * The exclamation point is important, I think. The LQ rule says "other terminal punctuation, such as a question mark or *exclamation mark*, may be retained."  Am I misreading it? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * (Jumping back up) "penalty of £3,000 for his delay"- could we perhaps have a 2010s translation?
 * It means that the contract included a provision stating that if Sullivan missed the deadline (Carte's planned production date), he had to pay £3,000, which he did. Feel free to suggest language that you think would be clearer. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant for the currency! What is that £3k in today's money? (You provide this elsewhere in the article for a different mention of a payment.) Josh Milburn (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Bahaha! I've added the currency translator!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "heir next opera, Utopia Limited" Should there be a comma in that title?
 * Done, thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "The Beauty Stone (1898), with a libretto by Arthur Wing Pinero and J. Comyns Carr was based on mediaeval morality plays." Comma after "Carr", perhaps?
 * Done, thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Is it worth mentioning some of the film adaptations of the operas?
 * No, I think that belongs in the Gilbert and Sullivan article, D'Oyly Carte Opera Company article and individual opera articles, where they are already mentioned. None of the film adaptations were, y'know, Oscar winners, and only one was really even a "feature film" (the 1939 Mikado). The adaptations are really only of interest to serious G&S fans and film history buffs and, as I said, they are generously covered elsewhere in G&S-related articles.  We do mention that Sullivan is "portrayed on screen in The Story of Gilbert and Sullivan (1953) and Topsy-Turvy (2000)," both of which were arguably successful films. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "Both relationships ended by early 1869" had ended, perhaps?
 * Tim? In American Eng., shorter would be better. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The plain past tense seems sensible to me. I don't think the pluperfect would add anything of value.  Tim riley  talk    09:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "with the American socialite, Fanny Ronalds, a woman", again, either lose the comma after socialite or change the to an?
 * Comma deleted! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "the autograph manuscript" What is an "autograph manuscript"?
 * It is the composer's original manuscript. The custom was for them to sign them.  What do you think, Tim -- does this need to be "his original, signed manuscript", or something like that?  -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Autograph simply means hand-written by the composer. This is the normal term, and can stand, I think.  Tim riley  talk    09:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "started to refer to her in the diary as" Why the?
 * Changed to "his". -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "In 1896 the 54-year-old Sullivan proposed marriage to the 22-year-old Violet Beddington (1874–1962), but she refused him.[180][n 28]" Perhaps you could move the note into the main body, to avoid a too-short paragraph? Just a thought.
 * The footnote material is not very important to Sullivan. What do you think, Tim? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Better where it now is.  Tim riley  talk    09:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "Henry Lytton wrote, "I" Noting, again, the slightly surprising comma use.
 * This seems correct and normal to me. Is it a Brit. Eng. problem, Tim? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not at all. This is the normal way of introducing a direct quote in BrE.  Tim riley  talk    09:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, you don't seem to close the Lytton quote.
 * Thanks. Good catch! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "performed with D'Oyly Carte" Why not just Carte? Or is this a different person?
 * Carte is the person's surname. D'Oyly Carte is the name of the opera company. Now clarified. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "where she had the opportunity to play Josephine in 1879" Josephine has not been introduced. Is she the lead?
 * Yes. Now clarified. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "a D'Oyly Carte chorister" Again
 * Should be clear now that I've linked it earlier in the paragraph. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "an Imperial March, composed" As before- a weird mix of genre and title!
 * Tim? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A helpful rule of thumb in judging whether "march" or "overture" etc is part of the title is to ask yourself if you could refer to the work without it. You couldn't just call this piece "Imperial", and its correct title is "Imperial March". That said, perhaps here we should use a definite rather than an indefinite article before it. What think you?  Tim riley  talk    10:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I made it "his". Howzzat? -- Ssilvers (talk) 10:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I say – cricket! We'll make an Englishman of you yet. Excellent tweak, I think.  Tim riley  talk    20:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "In Young's view" Who? I don't think this person has been introduced yet.
 * Tim, I moved "Percy" higher. Do we need to say "Biographer" or "Musicologist", etc.? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As he has a link, I think not.  Tim riley  talk    09:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "certain ways he seldom" Comma after ways, perhaps?
 * It has been cruelly drilled into me by Tim riley that Brit. English does not permit such a comma. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Now, I have never said never in BrE; all I say is that we use it only when it helps the reader. It is not needed in "On Monday I went shopping" but is helpful in "On first reading Joyce, Beckett was excited" because without it one is confronted, at first glance, with a hitherto unknown personage named Joyce Beckett. I don't think the comma is especially needed here, but it would do no harm.  Tim riley  talk    09:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "the Neue Zeitschrift für Musik identified" Again, this feels like undue personification, but YMMV.
 * If this usage is good enough for Fowler and Gowers, which it is, then it's good enough for me.  Tim riley  talk    09:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "and Benedict Taylor, writing in 2017, concurs.[209] In a 2009 study Taylor adds Schubert" Can an earlier study add to a later?
 * I'll let Tim handle the above two. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Taylor (2017) concurs with the earlier comment. In 2009 he added Schubert to the list of possible influences.  Tim riley  talk    09:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That looks good to me, Tim. By all means make it so. -- Ssilvers (talk) 10:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "of long finales."[211]" MOS:LQ?
 * Thanks. Moved the punct outside the quotation marks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "Richard Silverman, writing in 2009, points to the influence of Liszt in later works – a harmonic ambiguity and chromaticism – so that by the time of The Golden Legend Sullivan had abandoned a home key altogether for the prelude." Could this perhaps be expanded on a little or some links provided? It's a little tricky for this non-specialist!
 * Thanks. I added two links. We have been cautioned repeatedly to keep these sections as concise as possible.  This is a truly technical sentence, and, as a person who has performed Sullivan music since the 1970s, I am confident that there is nothing to be gained by expanding it, and that any music historians who might want to know more about this will need to read Eden and Saremba's tome, if they can stand it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Excellent changes, Tim! -- Ssilvers (talk) 10:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, stopping there; really strong so far. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, thanks, and looking forward to any further comments! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "Drive-by comments"? No fear: lots of valuable points from Josh there, and I too hope for more.  Tim riley  talk    20:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll hopefully get to the bottom this time!
 * "achieve "the clarity to match Gilbert's finely honed wit with musical wit of his own."[215]" Again, I wonder if the period belongs outside the quotemarks.
 * Done! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "and probably Utopia Limited." Utopia, Limited, perhaps?
 * Yes, done! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "Hughes cites "If you go in" (Iolanthe) as an example" Title case for songs?
 * Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "Sullivan often followed suit and produced phrases of simple repetition, such as "Love is a plaintive song" (Patience) and "A man who would woo a fair maid" (The Yeomen of the Guard)." As above, and presumably the phrases are in those songs, rather than being those songs (as I think is suggested by the current sentence structure).
 * Yes and Yes. Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Also "Go away, madam" in the next paragraph.
 * Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * ""Expressive glances" (Princess Ida)," Again
 * Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm being too sensitive, but "smoothly negotiates" doesn't sound that neutral. Perhaps it could be reframed slightly to make it clear that this is Hughes's judgement, rather than a fact we are reporting!
 * Replaced "smoothly" with "among" Tim, would you prefer "from ... to ... to ..."? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think any any careful reader of the sentence would miss the fact that we say this is what Hughes says. Restored.  Tim riley  talk    18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "or "Then one of us will be a queen" (The Gondoliers), where" Caps again
 * Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "to the ear."[12] Both" Again, I think I would put the period outside of the quotemarks.
 * Again, this is a complete sentence, so I believe the rule requires the punct to be inside the quotation mark. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "in "I am so proud" (The Mikado)," Caps- there are several others over the rest of that paragraph.
 * Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "graceful tune for the ladies" Ladies feels a little old-fashioned.
 * Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * What's a fugue? Would a link be possible?
 * Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "from the Epilogue to" Why caps? If you're referring to a piece called "Epilogue", presumably there should be quotemarks.
 * Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "as "Brightly Dawns our Wedding Day" (The Mikado) and "When the Buds are Blossoming" (Ruddigore).[238]" According to MOS:CAPTITLE, pronouns and verbs should have their initial letters capitalised- Our and Are.
 * Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "and starting with The Yeomen of the Guard, the" We may disagree, here, but I would put a comma after and, to make starting...Guard parenthetical.
 * Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "Hughes instances "Kind sir, you cannot have the heart" (The Gondoliers), "Free from his fetters grim" (The Yeomen of the Guard) and "In vain to us you plead" (Iolanthe).[248]" Caps
 * Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "in "Hereupon we're both agreed" (The Yeomen of the Guard), and Rodney Milnes called "Sighing softly" in The Pirates" Caps. Also, this is one of only two places where you shorten The Pirates of Penzance to The Pirates. I'd recommend spelling it out in full.
 * Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "The influence of Mendelssohn pervades the fairy music in Iolanthe." pervades isn't the most neutral term.
 * What's non-neutral about "pervade"? It would be more boring to write "is heard throughout", but I think "pervades" is better. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suppose you're right! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "He made use of dance styles to enhance the sense of time or place in various scenes: gavottes in Ruddigore and The Gondoliers,[256] a country dance in The Sorcerer, a nautical hornpipe in Ruddigore, and the Spanish cachucha, and Italian saltarello and tarantella in The Gondoliers.[256]" This is a slightly twisty-turny sentence. (Sorry, that's not a very useful comment.)
 * Are you suggesting semicolons instead of most of the commas? Looks ok to me.  Tim? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy with semicolons. I am never certain which I think look better - commas or semicolons - in a short list like this. I've changed to semicolons. See what you think.  Tim riley  talk    18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "styles in his later opera, The Rose of Persia" Why the comma?
 * Deleted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "Of the sextet "I hear the soft note" in" Caps
 * Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "duet "Who are you, sir?" from Cox and Box,[259] and the whispered plans for elopement in "This very night" in" Caps
 * Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "jingoistic "He is an Englishman" in" Caps (MOS:CAPTITLE says that the first letter of verbs always needs to be capitalised.)
 * Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * ""With catlike tread" from" Caps
 * Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "calls Bouncer's song" Again, I'm slightly puzzled- is this a title?
 * Most (all?) of the song titles in G&S are just the first phrase of the song's lyrics. But a few numbers have become widely, but unofficially, known as "The Bell Trio" or the nightmare song, etc. Tim, do you think that "Bouncer's Song" should be so in quotes, or just as is? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It would look very odd in quotes, just as, say, "Basilio's aria" would if we were writing about Mozart. But there would be no harm in calling it "We Sounded the Trumpet". I don't think it would be an improvement, but would do no harm.  Tim riley  talk    18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "to Arac's song" Same again
 * Tim same question. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ditto.
 * Later (brain belatedly catching up with eyes, sorry): do we need to say "in Act III", as Arac has only that one song in the whole opera?  Tim riley  talk    20:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Shame! Shame!  Arac has 2 songs.  In Act I, he sings "We Are Warriors Three" (his brothers just note their agreement with his descriptions:  "Yes, yes, yes, masculine insects!"
 * Ah, but the score refers to the Act I number as a Trio.  Tim riley  talk    18:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless! (Alternatively, "The score is a liar!")  -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "In "A more humane Mikado", at" Caps
 * Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "Bach's Fantasia and Fugue in G minor" Are italics definitely right, here? I'd treat it as a song, but I don't really know.
 * Tim? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Tricky. If I correctly read the MoS music section it should be plain type, as it is not a name (like, say Eroica) but a title (like "symphony"). No quotes around it either way. I've removed the itals.  Tim riley  talk    18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "A distinctive four-note theme is associated with the character Iolanthe, and the Fairy Queen's music parodies that of Wagner heroines such as Brünnhilde." Both of these characters are from Iolanthe? I think this would be worth making clear.
 * I made a change. Looks ok now?  Tim, please check (I introduced the LC's fugue a 2nd time, but is it helpful here?) -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks spot-on at it now is, me judice.  Tim riley  talk    18:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "Tower of London" Link, perhaps?
 * Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "Sullivan finally redeemed himself in critical eyes with The Golden Legend in 1886." Could we have a citation for this? Without one, it comes across as synthesis.
 * Tim? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll add one. No lack of them, but I'm not at Riley Towers among my books this evening. A Boxing Day task, I think.  Tim riley  talk    18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There's a suitably full one from Stanford's Studies and Memories now added.  Tim riley  talk    12:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "Hopes for a new departure were evident in The Daily Telegraph's review of The Yeomen of the Guard (1888)," Ditto
 * Not synthesis here, since this is what the review says. I changed it from "evident" to "expressed". -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right, sorry. I think I misinterpreted the sentence. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "Sullivan's only grand opera, Ivanhoe (1891), received generally favourable reviews" Ditto- I am guessing that all of this is supported by the following citations, but I think it could be a little clearer!
 * Tim? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We could add further references if anyone else would like them, but the statement is not contentious or in doubt.  Tim riley  talk    18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Added a citation that surveys the reviews.  Tim riley  talk    13:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "Sullivan's 1897 ballet Victoria and Merrie England was one of several late pieces that won praise from most critics" Ditto. Sorry to be a pain. It reads very well, we just need to be clear about citations.
 * Tim? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, not contentious, but I'm happy to pile on the citations if wanted.  Tim riley  talk    18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Done.  Tim riley  talk    13:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "that foul unforgettable episode."[288][n 36]" Again, I'd put the period outside the quotemarks
 * Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "As late as 1966 Frank Howes, music critic of The Times, condemned" Again, this may be my problem, but I'm not keen on this construction. How about "Howes, a [or "the"] music critic for The Times...". A critic of The Times would be someone who criticises The Times, surely?
 * Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Google Howes's successor, Richard Morrison, and you see he describes himself as "chief music critic of The Times". I think the change is unnecessary, but perfectly harmless.  Tim riley  talk    18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "sound musicianship."[291] The" Again, I'd put the period outside the quotes, here.
 * I'm not sure; as above, I'd think that enough of the sentence is quoted as to make it more logical to put the period inside the quotes. Tim? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I am struck by the fact that only one post-'50s critic is quoted. If I was being much too critical, I'd say that a little more could be done to stress just how big a deal Sullivan is!
 * The biographies cited contain "criticism" and are more recent. Ainger is 2002; Eden and Saremba are 2000. There are reviews of some of the new recordings we could go through, I guess.  Tim? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have a couple of downloads (via JSTOR) of recentish articles from The Musical Times about the rehabilitation of Sullivan's reputation. We could certainly add a quote or two if wanted, though I am conscious that the article is already on the long side.  Tim riley  talk    18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Are any by eminent writers/historians or published in eminent journals? I could likely find some reviews of recent performances reviewed by New York Times critics, gushing about Sullivan, but I don't think they would really add any "scholarship" to the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Check the quotemarks on the music sample titles
 * Sorry, what's the issue? Do you understand this comment, Tim? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being cryptic; this was the kind of thing I was meaning. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah! Thanks for fixing that.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "The Golden Legend (2001)" I don't think that wikilink goes where you want it to!
 * Good catch. Don't need to link it at all, though, as we've referred to it fairly recently above. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "and The Masque at Kenilworth and On Shore and Sea" Overlinking, perhaps?
 * These two haven't been linked since early in the article, so I think it's probably a good idea to link them here, no? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No objection from me! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "includes The Window and 35 other Sullivan songs" The whole cycle of The Window, or just a single "song" called "The Window"? If the former, other songs is a bit odd; if the latter, it should be "The Window" and not The Window
 * The whole cycle. I changed "other" to "individual", but it seems clunky to me.  Tim, what do you think? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it will serve as it now is. As St Paul says, They that endure to the end, they shall be saved. The intrepid readers who make it this far will be inured to our prose.  Tim riley  talk    18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "Mackerras's Sullivan ballet, Pineapple Poll," Already linked earlier in the article; also, I wonder whether "Sullivan ballet" is a good idea... "Sullivan-inspired ballet" or something, perhaps? I don't know, thinking aloud.
 * The ballet's score is not just "inspired" by Sullivan, it's actually a pastiche/arrangement of Sullivan's tunes, mostly from the G&S operas. Tim? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

A really strong article, and I applaud you for taking on such a topic! Josh Milburn (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all this. I'll let Tim go through it.  I'm not sure about some of the LQ comments.  Can any LQ experts please comment on my responses to those above where I did not indicate that I made the suggested change? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There's every chance I'm mistaken about MOS:LQ, and plenty of other reviewers weren't concerned. It's certainly not a big problem! One final little thought: "Characteristic "counterpoint of characters" from The Mikado, Act 1" (from a caption)- that sticks out as an uncited quote! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this refers to the same Jacobs cite as at the beginning of the paragraph. Tim, would you add the cite to the caption, please? -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Do we really want a citation in a caption when it's slap bang next to the identical words and citation in the text? I'll add it if you both think we need it.  Tim riley  talk    18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think it's really needed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to thank J Milburn for this very helpful and thorough review. We disagree on a few points, but in general the article is definitely the better for the above comments and resulting changes. A Merry Christmas to you, JM, and many thanks for your input.  Tim riley  talk    18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Support; I do think that the addition of a few citations to avoid the appearance of synthesis/OR would be valuable, as well as (ideally!) some more recent quotes showing the revival in Sullivan's popularity (all discussed above), but I'm sure that won't be too tricky. (I also do feel that direct quotes should always have clear citations, but I'm not going to push too hard on that point.) Josh Milburn (talk) 18:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your support, Josh, especially after my snapping about your ankles once or twice above. I meant to add the promised extra cites today, but RL intervened, and I hope to do it tomorrow. Your allegedly "drive by" (hah!) comments have been really valuable and we are indebted to you.  Tim riley  talk    19:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * My pleasure; and yes, it did end up being quite a batch of comments- a reflection of the length of the article, and certainly not its quality! Merry Christmas and a happy new year to you both. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, many thanks; your comments have helped us to improve the article greatly! -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from KJP1
Very sorry I wasn't able to join the Peer Review, so my belated, and minor, points are here. The article is exceptionally well-written, structured and sourced and, although I'm hardly a suitable judge, appears to give comprehensive coverage of Sullivan's life and of the available texts. A few minor thoughts below:

Lead
 * "Four years later, the Impresario Richard D'Oyly Carte..." Why is Impresario capitalised?
 * A typo that crept in during the earlier review. Now amended.  Tim riley  talk    18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "He died at the age of 58, regarded as Britain's foremost composer" - I'm no judge but this concluding comment in the lead doesn't seem to me to be entirely supported by the coverage in the "Reception" section. That appears to suggest that serious critics had already become rather "sniffy" about his work, and conveys a sense of his talents being squandered rather. I appreciate The Times obituary called him England's "most conspicuous composer ..." but is that quite the same as "foremost"?
 * A fair point. It's demonstrably true, but I'll add a supplementary citation.  Tim riley  talk    18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Having now dug up some confirmatory citations (Jacobs, p. 376 and Young, p. 93) I am reluctant to put them in the lead. Except for direct quotes I don't think a good lead should have citations at all, if the main text is OK, and I think it is here. In addition to the Times reference mentioned above, we have the Maine quote about being the nation's composer laureate. I could add a footnote incorporating the Jacobs and Young extracts too, if wanted, but I think it would be a work of supererogation.  Tim riley  talk    12:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Beginnings
 * "one anthem was given at the Chapel Royal" - again, my ignorance is probably showing but can one "give" an anthem, like a concert?
 * I think perhaps "performed" might be safer. I've changed it.  Tim riley  talk    18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

1870s; first collaborations with Gilbert
 * "The Daily Telegraph's reviewer commented that the piece illustrated the composer's "great capacity for dramatic writing of the lighter class", and other reviews emphasised the felicitous combination of Gilbert's words and Sullivan's music. One wrote, "it seems, as in the great Wagnerian operas..." - Super-picky but does "reviews" work here? Should it be "reviewers", or perhaps "One critic wrote..."?
 * Trimmed. We don't need to mention the anonymous critic. His paper will suffice. There is a spirited brawl over this, above, and j'y suis, j'y reste.  Tim riley  talk    18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "He accepted the latter post reluctantly, fearing that discharging the duties thoroughly would leave too little time for composing; in this he was correct." Perhaps just, "He accepted the latter post with reluctance, fearing correctly that discharging the duties thoroughly would leave too little time for composing."?
 * I should be sorry to lose this little coda. Not only do we mention (in a footnote) that Parry found the same, I wanted to add that Fauré found it too, in spades, when heading the Paris Conservatoire, but reined myself in.  Tim riley  talk    18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Early 1880s
 * "1822 dramatic poem based on the life and death of St. Margaret of Antioch for its basis" - may well be me, but the proximity of based and basis read a little oddly; is the "based" needed?
 * No, and now blitzed. That's three unnecessary words off the word count! Thank you!  Tim riley  talk    18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry to add back 3 words, Tim, but the poem is the subject of the cantata, or the cantata is adapted from the poem. The cantata is not the poem itself. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "increasingly viewed his work with Gilbert as unimportant, beneath his skills, and also repetitious. After Iolanthe, Sullivan had not intended to write a new work with Gilbert,..." - You've two "with Gilberts" in close proximity. If that's a concern, perhaps "increasingly viewed his work with Gilbert as unimportant, beneath his skills, and also repetitious. After Iolanthe, Sullivan had not intended a further collaboration,..."
 * I think it would be better to change the first, which I have done, I hope satisfactorily.
 * Yes, it's much better than what we had for several reasons. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "The composer wrote on 1 April 1884 that he had "come to the end of my tether" with the operas:" - Why not just "Sullivan wrote ..."
 * Indeed. Done.  Tim riley  talk    18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "The piece ran for 672 performances, which was the second-longest run for any work of musical theatre, and one of the longest runs of any theatre piece, up to that time.[n 20]" - Does Note 20 also support the "second-longest run" statement? If it doesn't, a citation to close the paragraph is probably needed.
 * No, this is copper-bottomed. The citations certainly cover the text.  Tim riley  talk    18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Later 1880s
 * ".. that he revive an old idea for an opera set in colourful Venice" - while, as Tim knows, I'm partial to a bit, or a lot, of Ruskinian polychromatic stonework, is there any particular reason to describe Venice as "colourful" here?
 * This is an attempt to convey concisely that the piece was envisaged as a glamorous scenic celebration of Venice, after the austerity of the Tower of London. We could lose the adjective, but I'd be reluctant to do so.  Tim riley  talk    18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. We could say "sunny" instead of colourful, which is an adjective that I believe Sullivan used in correspondence. I think Gilbert used the term colourful to mean, really characterful or fanciful, in that Victorians imagined (rather correctly) that Venice was a land of delicious flavors, beautiful vistas and lilting music. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

1890s
 * "the historical elopement of Dorothy Vernon with John Manners." - appreciate there's no direct link, but a link to the Duke of Rutland might help?
 * I'll leave this to my partner in crime. My reaction is No, but then you know I think we all link far, far too much to be helpful to readers. I'll happily accept whatever Ssilvers thinks about this point.  Tim riley  talk    18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, the real problem here is that the elopement is almost certainly *not* historical; it is merely legend. I changed historical into "legend of the". I definitely don't think that linking to the Duke of Rutland is helpful.  We already link to our article on Haddon Hall (opera) and to Dorothy Vernon, both of which explain all of this.  The Duke of Rutland article does not even mention *this* John Manners -- it mentions his grandson of the same name, the 8th Earl of Rutland, and other descendants of the same name.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Death, honours and legacy
 * "His Te Deum Laudamus, written to commemorate the end of the Boer War, was performed posthumously" - I think this needs a tweak, it certainly threw me. Sullivan dies in November 1900 but the war doesn't end until May 1902. Perhaps something like, "written in expectation of victory in the Boer War"?
 * I say! Well caught! Duly amended.  Tim riley  talk    18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "by the universities of Cambridge (1876) and Oxford" - Am getting dangerously above my pay grade and may well be slapped down but, if it were just one, would it not be "by the University of Cambridge"? Thus, should it not be similarly capitalised when it's two? Steps back and awaits explosion...
 * It's a nice point. I don't know that I ever met it before. Of course as a Guardian reader I am used to seeing all sorts of distracting lower case ("lord chancellor" etc) but I am old enough to have been brought up to capitalise more than is now fashionable to capitalise. I've changed to ulc here, subject to any objections from other reviewers or my co-nominator.  Tim riley  talk    18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "Oh, I've no objection, if it's usual!" -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Romantic life
 * "Rachel's parents did not approve of a possible union with a young composer with uncertain financial prospects" - avoid the double "with" by replacing the second with "of"?
 * Good. Yes. Done.  Tim riley  talk    18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "A contemporary account described Ronalds this way: "Her face was perfectly divine"".. - the "this way" is slightly discordant to my untrained, and unmusical, ear. Is it needed, or would "thus" do?
 * I'm not sure "thus" is much better, but it's one word less, and I've changed it.  Tim riley  talk    18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "Thus" sounds rather faux-Shakespearean to me, or at least quaintly eccentric. How about "as follows"? I don't feel that strongly: "I am a quasi-Englishman: Behold me!"  -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've redrawn to avoid the problem.  Tim riley  talk    10:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Leisure and family life
 * "Sullivan loved to spend time in France (both in Paris and the Riviera),..." - "Sullivan loved to spend time in France (both in Paris and on the Riviera),"?
 * Indeed. Done.  Tim riley  talk    18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "Bertie stayed with his Uncle Arthur for the rest of the composer's life" - not quite sure as to the meaning of "stayed", here; "visited" - (doubtful?), "lived with" - (perhaps?), remained constant? Is there a better word?
 * "remained" is better, I think. Done.  Tim riley  talk    18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Orchestration
 * "For his large-scale orchestral pieces, which often used very large forces," - quite out of my depth here, so layman's queries. I don't understand this, does it mean a large orchestra, more instruments? Can it be clearer?
 * Yes, a large orchestra, but I'm not sure it's confusing as drawn and am reluctant to have "orchestral" and "orchestra" in such close proximity.  Tim riley  talk    18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "*Hmm. We do say "large" twice in the sentence. Victorian performances often employed several hundred musicians. At the Leeds Festival in 1880, Sullivan was given "only" 111 orchestra musicians, and he begged for a dozen or two more, as they would give the orchestra "full" sound. The Festival declined to pay for this.  I guess it is worth emphasizing that they were "very large". -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Musical quotations and parodies
 * "a theme in the slow movement of the Irish Symphony "an outrageous crib"" - link "crib for non-English speakers, although the link's not great? crib?
 * I'll leave my learned friend to consider this when he returns to this page from a few days' absence over the yuletide holiday.  Tim riley  talk    18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that we should generally resist adding links in direct quotations. In this case, especially since the link is not terribly helpful, I think that advice seems wise. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Knighthood and later years
 * "The World called it "one of the greatest creations we have had for many years." - by an odd chance, I've just used this publication in another article. There, Mark Girouard quotes it as "World", without the definite article. Harris definitely has The World?
 * "World" without the definite article looks rather peculiar to me. I'll check and amend if the contemporary sources show the article was not used.  Tim riley  talk    18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * . I've checked this, and the definite article is a definite necessity. This, now I check, is the paper in which Bernard Shaw wrote most of his musical criticism (though he didn't write this: it was by his usually waspish colleague Louis Engel). The paper is The World, and if it is that publication to which Girouard refers, he's got it wrong, and if I were you I'd add the "The" regardless.  Tim riley  talk    10:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * - Tim - many thanks. I shall amend Cragside accordingly. KJP1 (talk) 14:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

That's it from me. Most of the above you can consider and discard, but I think there are a couple that might warrant a little further thought. It's a fine collaborative piece and fully merits FA. Happy Christmas. KJP1 (talk) 16:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, KJP, for these points. Seasonal greetings most warmly reciprocated.  Tim riley  talk    18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks from me too. Very helpful comments. Taken together with those of other commenters, I think they give us confidence that we now have solved most of the issues that might arise for our readers. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.