Wikipedia:Peer review/Creatures of Impulse/archive1

Creatures of Impulse

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This is a fairly new article, but has already reached Good Article status. It is a fairly minor play by W. S. Gilbert, but interesting, and it's fun doing these small plays, as we have an excellent chance of writing the best article on the internet about them. We would like to get an idea of how hard it is to get an article of this type, where the number of scholarly sources is relatively limited, to FA, and the best way is to try, so please give any comments that would help us get it up to FA. =)

Thanks, Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Awadewit

This article is already so much better than the last time I read it! I'm impressed! Here are my questions and comments:

• Did the play or short story influence any later works or later artists? Can there be a "Legacy" section, for example?
  • Not directly. It might have been briefly referenced by P. G. Wodehouse (who made a habit of dropping references and quotes to even fairly obscure Gilbert plays), at most, but I don't think it had any particularly significant impact. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Before taking the article to FAC, I would spend some time copy editing or ask someone like Scartol to help you out. FAC has become serious about "brilliant prose". Right now, the article has lots of slightly awkward sentences, a few missing words, and inconsistent verb tenses. This can all easily be fixed, though.
  • I've spoken to a couple, we'll see if anything comes of it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• The first paragraph of "Background" should either be rearranged to alert the reader it is going to be about both Gilbert and Randegger or it should be broken up into two paragraphs - one about Gilbert and one about Randegger.
  • Done. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)

• As noted below, his music for Creatures of Impulse was not praised by the critics, and much of it was cut from revivals of the piece.[4][8] - I find "as noted below" statements inelegant. Should this information not be included here or simply repeated later?
  • I just gave a quick summary here. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• The second paragraph of "Genesis of story and play" begins abruptly - it needs a good transition.
  • Fixed. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• The second paragraph of "Subsequent productions" seems rather awkward - is there any way to make it flow better?
  • I think I have Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• The multiple systems of footnotes might bother some people at FAC - I don't know for sure. Something to be aware of. I haven't seen this system before. The new is scary, you know!
  • Let's see what happens =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Many of the reviews name Boomblehardt as a Jew in their plot summaries;[2][3][4] however, while Edward Righton played the role as a Jewish caricature, Gilbert's script did not use a Jewish dialect, and historian Jane Stedman suggests that Gilbert did not authorize this interpretation. - This seems out of place in the "Critical reception" section. Would it work better in the "Characters" section?
  • Moved Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Full retrieval dates should be linked in "Notes".
  • I know. I'm trying to get the template fixed, if that fails, I'll use an alternate template. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I've switched to an alternate template. If FAC wants to object, they can fix the template. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• The "References" do not all seem to be listed in the same style.
  • As per above. I'll do what I can. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• One "external link" is not linked.
  • Fixed. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Check WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:PUNC for how to punctuate quotations. I saw some periods inside quotation marks and the like.
  • The periods inside quotation marks are in the original, punctuation outside them is me. =)

I hope this was helpful - most of my comments are about picky things! The article is coming along nicely. Awadewit (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 01:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• http://web.ukonline.co.uk/ajcrowth/wsgsoc.htm this site, what makes it reliable?
  • Mainly that it's by Andrew Crowther. He's one of the leading experts on Gilbert, but I don't think he's really grasped the internet age. This is not unusual in the field: For instance, would you suspect that http://www.britnett.net/sirarthursullivansociety/ would be the homepage of a society powerful enough to largely control the recording of Sullivan's lesser works for Hyperion Records?
  • That said, we probably don't need that reference - I think similar material appears in his book. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 23 is lackign a publisher
  • I think the publisher is just the "International Gilbert and Sullivan Festival". But, yeah, that got added after I went in and standardised referencing - I'll fix it in a wee bit. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• What makes http://www.c20th.com/GSarchive.htm a reliable source?
  • In itself, it's not. But the source actually being used is the primary source theatre programmes shown on it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise the sources look good. You said you wished to go to FA with this, and I've checked over the sources like I would have at FAC. I did not read the prose or do any checking of the prose. 22:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)