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 User:SandyGeorgia 01:27, 29 June 2008 [1].

Trial by Jury

[edit]
Nominator(s): Shoemaker's Holiday, Ssilvers


This article is the latest concentrated drive by WP:WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan. Over the last month or so, over two dozen published sources have been consulted - the lengthy bibliography section will give some idea of this; and all, or almost all, have been newly-consulted or reviewed during this drive (as well as a few others that, for whatever reason, never got cited, and thus aren't mentioned). While I can't guarantee that every source was used, I think that most people who knew about Gilbert and Sullivan would not find any substantial omissions, save, perhaps, that some of the sources, such as Arthur Jacobs, that we consulted late in the process didn't get cited as much as they would if they had been consulted earlier, simply due to overlap.

A great number of people have helped us in his process, and I apologise if I miss anyone out, but I'd like to thank User:Finetooth for an excellent MOS-check and copyedit, all our peer-reviewers, Marc Shepherd, who came back from retirement to assist us, and many, many others. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC) [Nomination went live on 06:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)][reply]

Co-nomination: This is the first article on any of the famous Gilbert and Sullivan operas to be nominated for FA, and it will serve as a model for what the others might look like, so it is important to WP:G&S. I agree that the research for the article has been thorough, and I think the article is comprehensive. Shoemaker's Holdiday and I, as well as Marc Shepherd and some others who have assisted us are familiar with the literature about Gilbert and Sullivan and their operas. The prose in the article has been vetted by many readers, although I am sure that FA reviewers will have further helpful suggestions. In addition to the editors mentioned by Shoe, User:Yllosubmarine, User:Awadewit, User:Tim riley and many others have assisted us. We look forward to resolving any comments raised in the FA process. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC) [Nomination went live on 06:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)][reply]

Moved to talk page, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain how Marc Shepherd meets WP:SPS, specifically: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Marc Shepherd wrote quite a number of scholarly articles - I don't have a list to hand of his most major publications, but here's a google scholar link: [2] I think, therefore, that he is a recognised scholar in the field, even if not one of the really big ones. As such, he can be trusted to get the lists right, and that's all we really need to trust him for. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The google links you provided don't answer my query, and Shepherd is being used to source critical opinion:
    • Of the recordings by the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company, those from 1927 and 1964 have been well-received. The 1961 Sargent and the 1995 Mackerras recordings are also admired.[120]
    • Also, that critical opinion isn't supported by the citation, and isn't attributed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, the citation does support the critical opinion, based on the site's star rating system. Shoemaker is wrong: I wrote the section recently; it is not "legacy text". Isn't it better for the article to make some qualitative comparisons among the various recordings than to leave the reader to select one at random from the list? There is no other source on the web OR ELSEWHERE that provides this information. Shepherd's star ratings are the most useful comparative assessment in the world for G&S recordings: See below. As for attribution, that would be easy enough to add. I suggest that we reinstate the description about which recordings are recommended. Also, I note that Marc Shepherd has not contributed more than a couple edits to this article in the past year, and those were at our request simply to add references to the Rollins and Witts books, with which he is not affiliated. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case, deleted. I trust the simple list of recordings is acceptable? I think what happened is that we got a bit of legacy text that was meant to have gotten better cited but ended up being missed because noone sslapped a citation needed on the first, uncited part. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is not correct, Shoe. It was cited; Sandy is saying that the cite does not support the conclusion. See above. I have put the text back in and added the attribution that I think Sandy is looking for. Let's discuss how to clarify the Discography's status as a reliable source. This is very important to all the G&S articles. There is no more difinitive source for information, including comparative assessments, of recordings of G&S in the world. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Without a doubt, Shepherd's discography is the most complete and best researched discography of Gilbert and Sullivan in the world. It was compiled over a period of many years and includes reviews by dozens of Gilbert and Sullivan experts beside Shepherd. Every Gilbert and Sullivan expert in the world knows Marc Shepherd. He is an editor and consultant for the Broude Brothers critical editions of the Gilbert and Sullivan scores. Broude has published the only critical edition of Trial by Jury. Shepherd has published the best modern-engraving score in the world of The Grand Duke, and has published numerous articles on Gilbert and Sullivan in the various Gilbert and Sullivan specialty publications, such as GASBAG, The Palace Peeper, The Trumpet Bray and elsewhere. He is attributed as an expert or consultant on dozens, if not hundreds of books and articles about G&S and related subjects. See, e.g., "From First Baseman to Primo Basso: The Odd Saga of the Original Pirate King (Tra La!)", NINE: A Journal of Baseball History and Culture - Volume 15, Number 2, Spring 2007. People writing about G&S usually say this about G&S sources: "Two websites are of great value - Marc Shepherd's exhaustively annotated discography and the vast resources of Jim Farron and Paul Howarth's Gilbert and Sullivan Archive" [3]. One could go on. I disagree with Shoemaker: Marc Shephered is a major Gilbert and Sullivan authority, not a minor one. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did not mean to disparage Shepherd: I was not aware of all his work, but had the impression he had only writen quite a lot of insightful journal articles, but nothing pulling together his work into a large-scale form, such as a book. However, this was in ignorance of his role on the Broude scholarly editions of scores - heavily researched scholarly editions of Gilbert and Sullivan. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
< Discussion moved to the talk page here for sorting. > SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Book questions and lots of WP:SPS "evidence" left for Ealdgyth on the talk page (I don't know book publishers as well as Ealdgyth does). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A summary of Marc Shepherd as a reliable source is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan/Marc Shepherd's Gilbert and Sullivan Discography. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the ones you listed, Ealdgyth, although I think you're mistaken about ref 93; The Gondoliers is part of the title, not the publisher. Was there something else wrong with it? Let me know if there are additional ones. María (habla conmigo) 16:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead's timeline is confusing. The play's genesis is mentioned after its production history; shouldn't it be the other way around? There's also no mention of the recordings or benefit productions. Also, should it be mentioned in the lead when the productions stopped or when it was removed from the repertory?
  • I have tried to simplify the first two paragraphs of the Lead, although I think it is important to mention the date of the show's premiere at the top. I also mentioned the benefits and recordings and clarified that the piece is still being widely performed. I also added a paragraph in the Production and Aftermath section to amplify the more "modern" information. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a fan of specific quotes in the lead lest they be notable in their own right. I don't think Kurt Gänzl's quote ("probably the most successful British one-act operetta of all time") appears in the body, either, so maybe the sentiment could just be paraphrased? "It's considered to probably be the most successful...?"
  • I moved Gänzl's quote down to the Production and Aftermath section, but I think that trying to say the same thing in the intro would be a controversial statement that requires citation. Perhaps the Lead is enthusiastic enough without it? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arthur Sullivan and W. S. Gilbert are mentioned by their full names in the lead, but from the very beginning in the body they're simply referred to as "Sullivan" and "Gilbert". Remember, pretend the lead doesn't exist and start with the basics.
  • The section "Production and aftermath" may be a little misleading since it's about the initial production, yes? Should the section header be made more explicit?
  • "Analysis and innovations" is a huge section; is there any way to split it? Music innovations, production innovations?
  • The best split is probably splitting off the last two paragraphs [the Trial-specific material] from the rest [which is a forward-looking discussion comparing the innovations with later G&S operas. I'm not sure about it, though, as it's hard to set out the scope, and, by necessity, the comparison with later works also discusses Trial a lot. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried several methods and finally decided on three subheadings. "How say you"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the little things in life that get to me: in the refs, is it Stedman, pp. 120–21. (ref 9, only one example) with a period or Stedman, pp. 99–127 (4) without? Also, is it Bradley, p. 36, 38 (132) with "p." or Ainger, pp. 380–81 (119) with "pp."?

Otherwise it looks great! I made a handful of very minor edits, mostly regarding punctuation. Hope you don't mind. María (habla conmigo) 14:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Support. All changes were made or explained away to my satisfaction. Great work, guys! María (habla conmigo) 20:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing Finetooth, I must say that I added one link to the article and made a couple suggestions during its nomination for "Good Article" status. MarianKroy (talk) 12:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • [[:Image:Trial by Jury - So I fell in love with a rich attorney's elderly ugly daughter.png]] and Image:Trial by Jury Usher.jpg both appear to be from books - the full publication of those books should be on the image description pages.
Done. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think the "Reception" section is quote-heavy. I am thinking one quote per paragraph, perhaps? :) Ok, I'll be less Draconian, two?
  • These would, from this point forward, provide a grounding point for romantic characters in each of the Savoy operas, providing an introspective scene in which such characters stop and consider life, in contrast to the foolishness of the surrounding scenes. - repetition of "provide".
Fixed Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)
  • Like both of the tenor's arias in Trial by Jury, tenor arias in later Savoy operas were set in 6/8 time so frequently... - Perhaps link 6/8 time for the non-musically inclined?
Fixed. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Crowther explains, Gilbert combines his criticisms with comic entertainment, which renders them more palatable, while at the same time underlining their truth: "By laughing at a joke you show that you accept its premise. - First mention of Crowther needs to tell the reader who he is.
Fixed. There was a couple refshuffles, and it appears we missed moving a bit of attribution, now provided.
  • The following tables show the casts of the principal original productions and D'Oyly Carte companies at approximately 10-year intervals through to the 1975 centenary season - I'm still unconvinced that all of these cast lists are necessary. The originals, yes, but why at ten-year intervals? This just seems arbitrary to me.
The D'Oyly Carte Opera Company split up when I was two, so I'm not fully conversant, but, as I understand it, the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company was, perforce, the focus of a great deal of love for Gilbert and Sullivan up until their breakup. As such, each generation of performers gained their fans, and, as they had an almost ridiculously rigid control on performances in Britain - not following their prompt-books could result in you never gaining permission to perform the opera again - they proved hugely significant to generations of Gilbert and Sullivan fans, directors, etc. In another thirty years, these cast lists may be less important, but the works only left copyright (and thus the rigid control) in 1961 (Life +50 was then the rule, I believe), and thus they are still significant. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The DOC did not license any other professional G&S companies in Britain, and so it was the only authorized professional G&S company in Britain until 1961. Even after this, they continued to be the premiere G&S company in the world until their dissolution in 1982. They toured the shows constantly in Britain during the creators' lifetimes and thereafter and performed frequent seasons in London, as well as touring the world. Their performers also made the only licensed recordings of G&S until 1961 and their recordings continued to be in high demand after that. So these performers are well known to modern fans. Indeed, many of the vintage recordings with the famous performers shown in these tables have recently been re-released. So, for some of our readers, these tables will be of interest, I think. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to sound contrarian, but I don't think these answers are really addressing my point. I asked why ten-year intervals. I'm sure this company is important, but I am not sure that these particular performances are. Why not five-year intervals? Why not seven? I'm just not convinced that the process of selection of these cast lists was anything other than arbitrary. Awadewit (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Over to Ssilvers, he's our expert on performers. With the exception of a few prominent members of the original casts, I am completely ignorant about them.Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing the historical casts, it appeared from the sources that there was major turnover in casts about every 10 years, and that by selecting this interval, we would be able to show the names of most of the famous performers. If we had selected five years, there would be a lot of repetition and hardly any new notable names would appear. If we had selected 20 years, many of the famous names would be missed. So it seemed the best choice. This was true not only for Trial but for all the G&S operas. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - could we explain that to the reader of the article? :) Awadewit (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I added a sentence above the tables. Perhaps it would be better as a footnote, though? It seems to me that only a select few eagle-eyed readers will wonder about this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sentence is fine, but if you would prefer a footnote, that is fine, too. Awadewit (talk) 13:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a thoroughly enjoyable article and I think the fun of the play comes through in it - well done all. Awadewit (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More