Talk:Arthur Wing Pinero

Arthur Wing Pinero has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 27, 2019	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 24, 2020.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance).

England

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Theatre

	Theatre portal This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Arthur Wing Pinero/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 20:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph of Fin de siècle is not cited. (Should Fin de siècle be in italics?)
- The five supporting citations are in footnote 5. I could duplicate them in the main text if wanted. The OED doesn't italicise (or, as it would say, italicize) the phrase. Tim riley talk 22:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We may be talking at cross purposes, or - entirely possible - I may be missing something. The paragraph "Within a year of the disappointment of The Beauty Stone Pinero returned to successful form with a four-act play The Gay Lord Quex, a comedy of manners, in succession to two others in the genre, The Times (1891) and The Princess and the Butterfly (1897). The Gay Lord Quex, a story of a determined and resourceful young woman and a reformed aristocratic philanderer, had an initial run of 300 performances and has proved one of Pinero's more revivable plays." does not contain a cite. It ends with a note, number 6, which discusses revivals and is itself (adequately) cited. At most this note provides referencing for "and has proved one of Pinero's more revivable plays"; the rest of the paragraph, so far as I can see, is uncited.

True. Now added some citations. Tim riley talk 16:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Pinero was born in London, the only son, and second of three children" Optional: should that be 'the second'?
- Either seems OK to me. Will gladly change if you prefer. Tim riley talk 22:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. Your choice. It rings oddly to me, but I am certain that your grasp of formal use of English is superior to mine.

"For them he played the Marquis de Cevennes in Plot and Passion (1881), Sir Alexander Shendryn in Ours (1882), Hanway in Odette (1882) and Sir Anthony Absolute in The Rivals (1884) in a starry cast that included Squire Bancroft" Optional: so many in's that "in a starry cast" reads a little jarringly.
- True. Redrawn. Tim riley talk 22:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know how many shows The Second Mrs Tanqueray ran for?
- We do. 225 performances. This is included in the table of productions later in the article, but could perfectly well be duplicated here if wanted. Tim riley talk 22:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would, I think, be helpful. "who disliked acting in long runs" left me wondering just how many that was and it was not readily apparent that the information could be found elsewhere.

Indeed. Now added. Tim riley talk 16:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"and of those that were produced in London the longest-running lasted for 64 performances" Optional: give the specific number, if known; what was the longest running? Eg 'and of the xxx that were produced in London the longest-running, The xxx of yyy, lasted for 64 performances'.
- Good. Done. Tim riley talk 22:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Plays. You are inconsistent regarding adding theatre to an establishment's name. Eg "Prince's Theatre" and "Toole's Theatre", but "Folly" and "Haymarket".
- My rule is to write "the XYZ Theatre" at first mention and then just "the XYZ" at subsequent mentions. I don't swear to following this unfailingly, and will check the text. Tim riley talk 22:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, explained. In your excellent table under Plays you follow this rule on from the text above. Hence "Folly" and "Haymarket". If it were me (which it isn't) I would include 'Theatre' in all first mentions in the table. However, I now understand why you don't and am happy with your approach.

And that is all I can find. This is well above GA level. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this. Some v. helpful points. Tim riley talk 22:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. You flatter. It was so good that in the absence of camels I was straining at gnats. Two points above for you to consider. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A fine piece of work. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The Beauty Stone

@Tim riley: Hi. Many congratulations on the continuing GA status. Thanks for drawing my attention to the refs. The following is humorously intended, although serious. You are probably aware that Sullivan's MS of The Beauty Stone only became available in 2005, and that the Chandos recording was made in 2013: thus a certain amount of further research has taken place since the publication of Dawick (1993), Jacobs (1984), and Percy M. Young - of blessed memory - (1971). I'm sure we can forgive them for not paying much attention to one of Sullivan's least-known scores. Would Alice Carr's J. Comyns Carr: Stray Memories p. 105 be suitable, stretching even further back (1920)? "In the Beauty-Stone Joe was only responsible for the lyrics and parts of the plot." Or is she guilty of WP:COI? BTW, my very first conducting engagement some 25 years ago was Trial by Jury. Best wishes, MinorProphet (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MinorProphet, that is genuinely interesting. I see from the WP article on The Beauty Stone that the sources for saying Carr wrote the lyrics and Pinero the book are two authorities for whom I have the utmost regard – Clifton Coles and Robin Gordon-Powell. As long as your alteration is cited to them, or other reliable sources that say so, rather than to Dawick, who doesn't, I'd be v. happy to see it restored. Tim riley talk 15:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]