Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/H.M.S. Pinafore/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 SandyGeorgia 22:48, 27 June 2009.

H.M.S. Pinafore

 * Nominator(s): Ssilvers (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it satisfies the FA criteria. After GA review, the article has benefitted from extensive peer review comments. Two other Gilbert and Sullivan operas are FA articles: Trial by Jury and Thespis (opera). -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support I'm one of the peer reviewers, who dabbles in the G&S articles now and then, though I'm not a member of the wikiproject. The article is engaging, well researched, comprehensive and well illustrated.  It is a good resource either for the casual reader or for the person knowledgeable about the opera.  It's well deserving of the star.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support This seems a good well-written and comprehensive article, covering virtually every possible angle of its subject. I only have two little niggles with phrasing:
 * In the Lead this phrase seems poorly structured: "..although her father intends her to marry the First Lord of the Admiralty, Sir Joseph Porter, the cabinet minister in charge of Britain's Royal Navy."
 * It might be better as: "..although her father intends her to marry Sir Joseph Porter, the First Lord of the Admiralty and the cabinet minister in charge of Britain's Royal Navy."
 * The following sentence in the Background section seems over-long and confusing: "Because Gilbert, Sullivan and Carte produced the show with their own financial support, instead of writing a piece for production by a theatre proprietor as was usual in Victorian theatres, they were able to choose their own cast of performers, rather than being obliged to use the actors already engaged at the theatre."
 * This might be better as two sentences, eg: "Instead of writing a piece for production by a theatre proprietor, as was usual in Victorian theatres, Gilbert, Sullivan and Carte produced the show with their own financial support. They were therefore able to choose their own cast of performers, rather than being obliged to use the actors already engaged at the theatre."   Xan  dar   23:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good ideas. I made the second change exactly as you suggested.  In the first case, I simplified the sentence, since the link already tells us that the position of First Lord is a cabinet post.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I look forward to seeing this article on the front page.  Xan  dar   00:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support From the POV of someone who knows nothing about the subject matter, I found this well-written article to be very informative. LargoLarry (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have any word-count tools, but the article is 115KB, which might be a little too long. Stifle (talk) 11:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not counting references, the word count is 11,297. Is there a limit to length? 67.79.157.50 (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support: I don't know the basis of the above wordcount. According to the "Page size" tool the current count is 9,931, which is long but not super-long. I would be against the article expanding any further (it was 7,629 words when I finished my peer review on 25 April), but I can live with it as it is. My peer review comments were extensive and have been acted on. My only remaining quibble is that non-breaking spaces have not been implemented, for 571 performances (twice), 178 performances, 10,000 copies, 91 performnces, and possibly other cases too. I suggest these are fixed. Otherwise hunky-dory. Brianboulton (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks. - I caught a couple more numbers. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support The article is comprehensive and informative. Slfarrell (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. (To declare an interest, I am a member of the wikiproject but have had minimal input to this particular article.) Readable, informative, no superfluous information, well-balanced, excellently referenced. I agree with Wehwalt's comments, above. Tim riley (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support I'm very impressed with the care and detail the editors have taken in preparing this article. It is comprehensive, well-written, and well-researched. They are to be commended for producing such a wonderful article on such an important work and we should applaud the excellent article they have produced. All of my questions and suggestions were addressed at the peer review. All I can still suggest is to replace the Prestige source with another one, since conference collections are not the best sources and the FA criteria asks us to rely on "high-quality" sources. As Brianboulton pointed out in the peer review, there are other sources with the same information. Awadewit (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Image review - All images have good descriptions and verifiable licenses. Awadewit (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support for reasons already given. Marc Shepherd (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note, Marc Shepherd was a contributor to the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the helpful note, Ss! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. Yes, they are linked, but you don't want your readers to leave your article, they might never return. I noted GASBAG, but there may be others.
 * Comments
 * Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://www.dgillan.screaming.net/stage/th-frames.html?http&&&www.dgillan.screaming.net/stage/th-longr.html
 * Don Gillan is the author of the book Of Boars and Bantams, A Pictorial History of Bradford City AFC. His 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)


 * http://www.culturevulture.net/Opera/HMSPinafore.htm
 * Culture Vulture is an arts review website established in 1998. Its publisher and editor is Michael Wade Simpson, of Santa Fe, New Mexico.  He holds a BA in Journalism from the University of Southern California.  He is a published author and was a teaching fellow at Smith College, where he received his MFA in choreography.  While living in the Bay Area for 15 years, he wrote about dance for the San Francisco Chronicle and other periodicals. In 2005, he was a NEA Fellow at the Dance Critics Institute, American Dance Festival. For culturevulture.net, he reviews dance, theatre and film.  The website also publishes the reviews of critics, writers and academics listed here.  The article cited is a 2005 review of a performance by NYGASP at Wolf Trap.
 * I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, but I lean reliable Ealdgyth - Talk 19:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * http://cnb-host4.clickandbuild.com/cnb/shop/musicalcollectablesltd?listPos=6&op=catalogue-products&prodCategoryID=43 -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This cite is the exclusive dealer for recordings of the The Gilbert and Sullivan Opera Company and is cited merely for the proposition that this recording exists and is available here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I figured it was for the listing of the fact the recording was available, a red flag was why this wasn't from a more mainstream source. Now I know! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * http://www.thejudyroom.com/discography/soundtracks/icgos.html
 * This extensive Judy Garland website and discography is edited by Scott Brogan and Eric Hemphill. See this about Brogan, mentioning Hemphill.  Brogan is a member of the research committee for the San Francisco Silent Film Festival and also a designer of the official Liza Minelli website.  He has published essays on the silent films of Douglas Fairbanks, Lillian Gish, Marion Davies, and William Haines.  This website is extensively cited on the internet, and a google search reveals over 5,000 links.  Among other accolades, the site has received the Gold Site Award from starpages.net.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I"ll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. I'm utterly on the fence about it.
 * This is the fact cited to it: "Judy Garland sings "I Am the Monarch of the Sea" in the 1963 film, I Could Go On Singing.". Awadewit (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This book makes the same point and would likely be considered a better source, I think.--Slp1 (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. The link doesn't work.  What does it say? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny; works great for me. Try this one . It sources the sentence perfectly.--Slp1 (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I'll just change the ref myself; since I can verify it without problem.--Slp1 (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the second one works OK. Please do go ahead.  Thanks!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Looks good, I think.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. --Ealdgyth - Talk 14:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * May i just point out how excellent the presentation of these rebuttals was! Concise, gave me all the information I needed and very helpful! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I aim to please! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support I am less concerned with all the technical details than I am with the content of the article, which I think is well-written and answers any questions I may have had about this particular G&S piece. Congratulations to all the editors who helped bring it to its present state. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 14:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support -- a well-referenced and thorough article. I have a couple suggestions.
 * In the fifth sentence of Act One of the Synopsis, it's a little unclear who Dick is: "His fellow sailors (excepting Dick) offer their sympathies, but they can give Ralph little hope that his love will ever be returned." The character list above the synopsis clarifies that he is indeed a character, but shouldn't there be a few adjectives or something describing his personality and hinting at his future contributions to the story? There's a description of him later in the act; could it be moved up, or do we really not know much about his character until that point?
 * Super idea. I have moved the description up as you suggest.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Josephine enters and reveals to her father that she loves a humble sailor in his crew, but she is a dutiful daughter." The second half of this sentence needs some clarification. When I read, "but she is a dutiful daughter," I want it to continue, "so she..." or "and will..." or something like that. How will being a dutiful daughter affect her actions? Maybe "she assures him that she is a dutiful daughter" would be better too.
 * Quite right! I have adopted your suggestion! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's minor stuff, though. It's a great article. MarianKroy (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources questions need to be resolved (did reviewers who supported before Ealdgyth's reviews check the sources?). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes - I checked every single one at the peer review. Unless there are new sources, my only issues with the sources are reflected in my above statement. Awadewit (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - well-written article, with good organization bringing together a significant amount of references. Cirt (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (I was given a notice about this FAC at my talk page, but have not been involved with it.) Cirt (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - One of Wikipedia's best. Impressive organization given the extensive sources. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 05:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. I am very familiar with the opera and its history, but my only dealings with the article have been a few comments and suggestions.  There is a massive amount of information here that I was unaware of, and it all makes for a very good read.  I've looked through it again and have a few niggles:
 * 2nd para of the lead: a) why not "a lower-class sailor, Ralph Rackstraw"?  b) next sentence: Ralph is encouraged to declare his love, not to elope (which he couldn't do by himself, anyway).  The decision to elope is made by both parties after Ralph threatens to kill himself.
 * Good comments! Done. -- User:Ssilvers


 * Background section, end of 2nd para: what exactly is signified by "[T]hey"?  Should the square brackets be round the whole word, or, if not, what is the unquoted word that ends "...hey"?
 * Fixed, thanks. -- User:Ssilvers


 * First Lord of the Admiralty: Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty says that the position of First Lord had been held by a politician since 1806, so Sir Joseph isn't exactly a unique case.  It might be worth noting this in a footnote somewhere (I suspect that Gilbert was well aware of this fact!).
 * Thanks. Gilbert had been satirising the idea at least since The Happy Land, as noted in the footnotes.  He obviously thought the idea of a civilian first lord was absurd.  I don't think the fact that Smith wasn't the first one is relevant, only that Smith had no relevant experience whatsoever, as already stated.  In any case, we link to the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty article already, so I don't think a footnote will add anything new. -- User:Ssilvers


 * Roles section: "Bill Bobstay, Boatswain's Mate (first mate)":  Boatswain is a very confusing article which goes on about second and third mates but not first mates.  I'd have thought that First Mate is a fairly grand position and Boatswain's Mate is a rather minor one, but I could be wrong.
 * Oops! Quite right.  Fixed.  -- User:Ssilvers


 * Songs and musical analysis section, 2nd para: "The best-known songs from the opera include "I'm called Little Buttercup", a waltz tune introducing that Sullivan repeats in the entr'acte and in the Act II finale to imprint the melody on the mind of the audience..." Introducing what - the character?
 * Yes, thanks! Fixed.  -- User:Ssilvers 20:15, 26 June 2009  [having trouble logging in]


 * --GuillaumeTell 18:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Quite a few of the images needed to be relocated per WP:ACCESS and WP:MOS. Please review the ellipses: they should be unspaced per WP:MOS.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed spacing of all ellipses. Thanks for fixing the image placement.  --  User:Ssilvers 23:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.