Wikipedia:Peer review/Arthur Sullivan/archive1

Arthur Sullivan

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.

A quite good biography already, but needs a little more work to get to FA. Any advice towards this end is welcome. =)

Thanks, Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: A long and interesting article, of some importance in the history of British music. Because of its length I will review it in parts, and my first set of comments follows.

• Lead: This needs to be expanded to a summary of the whole article. At present it only really summarises the "Life and career" section.
  • In what sense was Sullivan "English"? Father Irish, mother half-Irish, half Italian. Safer, perhaps, to describe him as "London-born"
    • The "Englishness" was very much emphasised his contemporaries, who really, really wanted an "English" composer of world class. For instance, his tutor Helmore called him (in a letter to The Times just after Sullivan's The Tempest premiéred) the "young English composer, Arthur Seymour Sullivan" [Ainger, p. 41) This attribution of him as English only increased as his career went on; for instance, this New York Times review says that he (and Alfred Cellier) are the "only two living exponents of the purely English school of music" (this is very typical of comments about Sullivan in his lifetime). Henry J. Wood (in the introduction to Henry Walbrook (1922) Gilbert and Sullivan Opera, London, F.V. White & Co, p. 9) writes of the G&S operas that "Nothing could be more English. Nothing could be more loved of the great mass of the English people..." You get the idea - England was determined to count him as one of their own, and he seems to have accepted this. Ain't nationality fun? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I've added in a note about his ancestry. Should I reference the "English" too? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
        • I agree with most of these comments, but I disagree strongly with this comment. Sullivan was born in England and lived all his life in England, except for study and vacations mostly in France. He's English. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the 13 orchestral works mentioned could be described as "major" orchestral works.
    • Sure! It'd probably save quibbling over whether, say, overtures, instrumental sections of other work, and the ballets counted as another orchestral work, anyway =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Beginnings
  • This section is image-heavy. I would suggest losing "The Window" (no reference to it in the text), or otherwise reducing the sizes of all three.
    • It was actually supposed to be mentioned, but there was a typo in setting up a reference that made it invisible. I fixed that and reduced the sizes a bit. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Lambeth was part of London in the 1840s
    • Right. Fixed. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd simplify to "Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst". The detailed geographical description of location isn't relevant to this article.
    • Done. Probably added by a military type seeking precision. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "a stay at private school" would be better as "a period at private school"
    • Done. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I think you should reword the Mendelssohn Prize sentence: "In 1856 he was the first winner of the Mendelssohn Prize..." - and you should use a footnote to say what this prize was.
    • Substantially rewrote that section. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • You can avoid a repeat of "Leipzig" by saying: "He then continued his studies at the Leipzig Conservatoire..."
    • Substantially rewrote that section. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Took up" conducting? Makes it sound a hobby, like stamp collecting.
    • Substantially rewrote that section. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "typically expected" sounds awkward, and "typically" is probably unnecessary.
  • The phrase "successful work for orchestra" occurs twice in quick succession. Suggest make one of them "orchestral work".
    • Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "lyrics" isn't an appropriate term for hymns. "Words" would do.
    • Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Wasn't the Schubert discovery a rather significant musical event, and therefore worth more than a casual passing mention?

• Collaboraton with Gilbert
  • Again, the section is image-heavy. Suggest size reductions.
    • Reduced one a bit. I anticipate that this section will be expanded as we improve the articles on the various G&S operas. We may as well leave the images alone for now and revist this later. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
      • This article is pretty long as it is (7,500 words plus numerous quotes). There is a Gilbert and Sullivan article; surely, that is where you should expand as the individual opera articles improve? Brianboulton (talk) 08:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Big hit" is a bit slangy and informal, perhaps?
    • Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • To say that they (the G & S operas) are "sometimes" known as the Savoy Operas is an understatement. I'd say "commonly" or "generally" known.
    • Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Nitpicky, but if he was born in 1842 and knighted during the 1883 run of Iolanthe, he can't have been knighted just before his 40th birthday.
    • No, the announcement was made in 1842, and he was duly knighted in 1843. I added the word "impending". -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The sentence beginning "Sullivan too, despite..." needs a citation, as does the sentence following.
  • When was Ruddygore renamed?
    • After a few performances -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The rest of the section contains numerous uncited statements, in particular:-
    • By G & S standards Ruddigore was not a great success
      • Fixed. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Sullivan reiterated his desire to leave the partnership
      • Somewhat over-emphasised. Neither Ainger or Jacobs covers it, that I see. I cut it, and instead added more detail, and increased coverage of the more important disputes. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
    • ...another brief impasse over a choice of subject
      • Fixed. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
    • their last great success together
      • Fixed. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
    • the breach over the carpet
    • Sullivan's siding with Carte.

I'll leave it there for the moment. More will follow. Brianboulton (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. We'll keep working on them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a bit more.

• Serious music 1875 to 1890
  • Why have you confined details of his professional activities to a footnote? Also, "educator" is an American term, not used in UK in my experience.
    • I liberated them from the footnote. But what word would you use instead of "educator"? Teacher doesn't really do it, as he was a professor and the Principal of a new school. He also gave music lessons. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
      • It's not a major point, but I would probably have worded: "...continued his careers (plural) in conducting and in musical education". Just a suggestion, feel free etc. Brianboulton (talk) 08:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I made the change. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Cite 1980 Leeds Festival commission
    • Done Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Cite that Sullivan found poem unwieldy
    • Done Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Cite Gilbert’s involvement in amending the text
    • Done Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Cite "successful" premiere
    • Done Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Cite Gilbert’s "highly prized" comment
    • Done Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Cite dedication to Princess of Wales
    • I thought this point was best left for the main article, so cut it in favour of other description. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Cite 1886 commission
    • Done Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Explain "recent Sullivan scholarship" and cite revival of interest.
    • Left that for the last section to pick up. The revival of interest in Sullivan's non-Gilbert works is probably best done en masse. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, this is a short visit, but you've got plenty to be getting on with. Brianboulton (talk) 00:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I think this will stimulate Shoemaker to continue slogging thru Ainger and Jacobs. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I've got the cites as today's project. Also, you know, reading Jacobs, I begin to wonder if we're being a bit too discreet and should cover his scandalous affairs with multiple women a bit more... well... I'll add in some more once we get to that section. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

More review comments

• Later works
  • "starring Irving and Terry" not relevant to this article
    • These were the most famous Shakespearean actors of their day, so it gives an idea of the the importance of the production. I think it's relevant. Anyone else? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
      • We could always rephrase it to make it clear why that's important, or point out its performance another way. I'll have a look when I get to this point. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • First para information requires citing. Citations also required:-
    • Sullivan under pressure from music establishment to write a grand opera
    • Gilbert’s refusal to write a grand opera libretto
    • Modest success of Haddon Hall
    • "Great success" of Merrie Englnd
    • "Miserable failure" of The Beauty Stone

• Death, honours, and legacy
  • Odd chronology in section title
    • It's the same order in which the information appears in the section. Or am I misunderstanding your comment? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I was just pointing out that the honours came before the death. Not suggesting you take action.
  • Cite completion of Emerald Isle by German
  • Cite posthumous performance of Te Deum

• Romantic life
  • There are no citations at all in the first paragraph
  • "Sullivan had a roving eye" is opinion. The statement that "he always returned to Fanny" needs citing.
  • The rest of the information in this section relating to Sullivan’s sex life, including his marriage proposal, must be cited.
  • "It is undisputed…" is opinion

Further comment: This article started out long, and is getting longer – 500+ words added since I started my review. It is, in fact, two articles: a biography of Sullivan, and a critical assessment of his work. Have you considered splitting it? The biographical article could more or less finish after the Personal life section, leaving the rest as a new article. There is the risk, if the article is kept unified, that readers will be too tired to do justice to the later sections. Please consider this. Brianboulton (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

An interesting idea. Is this done for other biographies of writers, musicians, etc? If so, I would be in favor of this. There is really much more to say about Sullivan's life, and as ShoeMaker completes his research, I suspect that the article will only get longer. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I did find one way to shorten the article: The Overtures section works better in Gilbert and Sullivan anyway. I'm not adverse to splitting the article, I'm just not quite sure how best to do it. I'm not adverse to splitting off the reception section, though I worry that noone will read it if we do. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking at a few music articles to see what they have done. In the Mozart article there is no splitting between biography and assessment. The overall article is a lot shorter than yours, mainly because the assessment sections are relatively brief. The Beethoven article has a separate sub-article for Beethoven's musical style and innovations. It seems to be a matter of choice, but if you want the critical assessment sections to be as detailed as they are at present, running to around 3,000+ words, then splitting should be seriously considered. Both sections of the article are of high quality, and might well read better as independent entities. Brianboulton (talk) 14:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • Per the MOS, the use of the graphical curly quotes is frowned on.
  • A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V.
  • Please don't run the titles/authors/bibliographical data for a weblink all into the weblink title. It's much easier if you put that information out and only link the title of the page.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 12:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)