Talk:Trial by Jury/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jury Trial-Disaggregation or something?

If you search Wikipedia for trial by jury, you do not get here, you get redirected to the jury trial page. Can some Wiki-savvy person fix it so that people looking for Trial by Jury can find this page regardless of capitalization used in the search? --Ssilvers 14:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Operetta or Comic Opera

An earlier version of the page said, "Since the work contains no spoken dialogue, some do not consider Trial by Jury to be an operetta but rather a comic opera." These are weasel words — who are the "some" who say that? Gilbert and Sullivan considered all of their joint works to be comic operas. Marc Shepherd 15:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Number of Performances

An earlier version of this page put the original run at 300 performances. The correct figure is 131 (see Rollins & Witts, and others). The confusion may arise because Trial was later mounted at other theatres, but if one confines the discussion to the original production at the Royalty, it 131.

It would probably be useful on this and the other G&S pages to set out the history of the original runs and major revivals. Marc Shepherd 16:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

George Grossmith "Jr" (1902 Benefit Performance)?

I changed the 1902 Benefit performance link to go to George Grossmith, Jr. instead of his father, George Grossmith. It is more likely that the son would have played the Usher in this benefit performance with C. Hayden Coffin and Barrington, who were appearing with him in West End Shows at the time. Plus, the son was always credited as "Jr." Finally, the elder Grossmith's bio says he retired in 1900 (and hardly performed after 1897). Any references to the contrary? -- Ssilvers 02:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Images

I'm going to try and get all the images used in songs of the Savoyard on the page or, at least, on this talk page and ready to be moved to the page when it grows a bit. However, I'll swear our top image, "Chaos in the Courtroom" isn't by Gilbert, and I would like to know what it's from, if possible, if we're going to give it such prominence. Adam Cuerden talk 14:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I might be able to find the source of that image in The Gilbert & Sullivan Photofinder. I know it was used on an LP cover, but I don't think that was the original source. Marc Shepherd 14:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Great! =)
That image first appeared in the Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic News of May 1, 1875 (Jefferson, p. 40). I also uploaded a considerably better scan than the one we had. Marc Shepherd 21:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Heh. Ironically, I just ordered that at the library, and was going to look at it Monday or so. Adam Cuerden talk 21:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Right. I moved the image over to commons (this is useful because it lets it use the image on, say, Wikisource, or if Italian Wikipedia wanted to use it, they can. They also have much nicer formatting.). The scan's from Johnson, right? Anyway, new link is right|thumb If you want to edit the information, might be easier to jump direct to [[commons:Image:Trial by Jury - Chaos in the Courtroom.jpg. Adam Cuerden talk 21:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The archive has a great image of "One-tree hill." But, why don't we finish expanding the discussion before inserting more images? It's a little croweded right now. -- Ssilvers 15:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Because it ought to be done at some point, and I feel like doing it now. also, isn't One-tree hill Sorcerer? Adam Cuerden talk 19:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Yes, you're right. I was getting ahead of myself with 'One Tree Hill'. -- Ssilvers 19:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

Helga Perry's site looks useful. Adam Cuerden talk 21:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

But all are, in fact, about the 1884 revival with Sorcerer. Oh, well. Probably a good source for other operas. Adam Cuerden talk 00:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with quoting a review of the later production, especially if we can compare it with a review of the 1877 production. -- Ssilvers 05:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Background

Started editing this. I don't have a source that says the counsel's song and opening chorus appear in the Fun version, but I do believe we're allowed to state patently obvious observations, so we should be safe enough. Adam Cuerden talk 22:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What to do now?

So far, I've gone through Stedman, the Bab Ballad Trial, and Crowther (Crowther says it's the only theatrical work by W. S. Gilbert that's set entirely to music, (Contradiction Contradicted page 77, if anyone sees a good place to work that in.) but otherwise, I'm not sure how much we can do with his analysis unless we can find some other analyses. I think I have the Illustrated London News review somewhere, how are you two set for usable sources? Adam Cuerden talk 01:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, there's that famous diary entry (or is it a letter)? by Sullivan describing his reaction to Gilbert's reading the libretto to him - we can't very well not include that. Stedman says it should be in Reginald Allen's The First Night Gilbert and Sullivan, on page 28. Adam Cuerden talk 01:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


Okay, just going to jot down some notes:

The Times, 29 March 1875: said that the lyrics and music were so well matched they seemed to have "preceeded simultaneously from the same brain" (Stedman, 130). I should be able to find the original of that review.

The Hornet wrote a review on 31 March 1875, Stedman does not quote it.

The Era (Date not given!) said "He [Gilbert] ventures into fields where no previous dramatists have entered... He says things which many of us may have thought, but which no one has dared to express" (Stedman, 130))

Stedman also has a quotable line herself on page 129.

However, this is not enough to begin an assessment section, and Stedman's quotes are far, far too short. I'll do what I can. Adam Cuerden talk 01:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Note:

It would also seem that a look at the Oxford and Broude scores would be useful - I just found a letter in one of the journals on JSTOR... funnily enough, by you, Marc... which hints both may be a wealth of information.

Forgive me - as a fellow of limited means, I do have a habit of collecting that which few others are likely to have as the best use of my money, so I'm probably a bit light on the works I should have for this. Adam Cuerden talk 01:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The following review: Trial by Jury Arthur Sullivan; Steven Ledbetter Review author[s]: Arthur Jacobs Music & Letters, Vol. 77, No. 2. (May, 1996), pp. 316-318. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0027-4224%28199605%2977%3A2%3C316%3ATBJ%3E2.0.CO%3B2-H

Has the useful information on page 317 that "A nice dilemma" is a "close parody" of D'un pensiero from the Act II finale of Bellini's La sonnambula. We may well have a better source for the information, but if not, that must go in.

Forgive me for this being disjointed, but there seems little point to starting writing this until we have a minimum amount of material, so collecting it up seems useful. Adam Cuerden talk 02:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Gurneys

A reference to Gurneys has been added, but I think it might be the wrong gurneys. See Gurney's Bank. This Gurney family is described in the book Friends and Relations by Verily Anderson (ISBN 1-898030-84-7). If the two Gurney banking families are one in the same, several cross-references should be added among the various articles, but I am guessing that Gilbert was referring to the Gurney's Bank Gurneys, since the one cited went out of business 10 years before Trial by Jury. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Moving towards FA

As I see it, the most glaring omission in this article is criticism. There is no discussion of how critics, contemporary or modern, reacted to Trial by Jury, nor textual analysis, and god knows that between Bradley and Crowther we could do a great deal of textual analysis.

The quality of prose is... fairly poor (at least, by FA standards) throughout, but until the content is complete, let's not worry about that, as bringing in the other sources is likely to change the prose.

The task is not daunting, but it's going to require some research. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. After you do Bradley and Crowther, I'll do Ainger. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Awadewit

Shoemaker's Holiday asked me to do a peer review, so here it is! Very interesting article, by the way. Here are my suggestions for improvement:

  • The caption for the lead image could be more descriptive - what part of the play is this? What is going on? Etc.
    • Thanks for the great review. This illustration is a little tricky to describe, actually: It does not seem to actually depict any particular moment in the play - rather it appers to be a whimsical creation of the artist. Although most parts of it COULD happen, it seems that the artist is depicting each character at a moment when he/she is doing something dramatic: The Plaintiff is desperately embracing her Counsel (this does not necessarily happen at all); the Defendant is sitting with his new love (but I have never seen this particular "business", and her position seems unlikely); the Usher may be calling out for silence, and the Judge seems very interested. I suppose it describes events that are most similar to those right before "A Nice Dilemma"; therefore I had previously suggested captioning this "A Nice Dilemma" without the quotes. Sounds OK? -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
      • That is tricky - sounds like a good solution. Awadewit (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • described as "A Dramatic Cantata" in the original promotional material - I would save this detail for the article itself.
    • I agree and have made the change. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Trial then toured and was frequently revived - Toured the UK? Europe? Perhaps a tad more detail here?
It immediately toured the British provinces, including Ireland, and several cities in America. Subsequently, it has been played tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of times throughout the world. I have personally performed in at least four full productions of it and dozens of concert performances of it (I live in NY), and it has been going strong for over 130 years. I made two minor changes to say "British provinces and America". Let me know if either of you think more ought to be said. I don't think any of our references will quantify the number of productions. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
That sounds fine to me. Awadewit (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • In the intervening years, the author and composer each became even more eminent in his field. - Sounds a little stilted
How about "...both the author and the composer became more eminent."? -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Is "eminent" really the right word? As we sure it isn't "popular"? They have slightly different connotations. Awadewit (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Each became more well respected and noteworthy in his own field. However, those three years did not bring either of them great popularity. See if you like the new language. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • As with all the Gilbert and Sullivan operas, the plot of Trial is ludicrous, but by behaving as if everything were perfectly reasonable, the characters in this satire of the legal system (a favourite target of Gilbert's, who had a brief legal career) reveal truths about common foibles and follies of men, women and society at large - Sentence is too long - break it up; also what are the common foibles?
I moved the parenthetical statement out of the LEAD and down into the Background section. I then broke the rest of the sentence in two and revised to clarify. Let me know if you think the last sentence is improved. I think it is closer to what Walbrook says in the indented quote further down. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The sentence still doesn't say what the "common truths" are - it is still too vague. Awadewit (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
LOL. I tried again. See what you think. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The lead does not yet seem to be a summary of the article.
I made some changes, and I think it now covers the high points discussed in the article. The question is, what order should the LEAD be in. I think it makes sense now, although it is not presented in the same order that the article presents the information. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps a bit more from the "Analysis of music and text" section? Awadewit (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, I added more of that and a short quote which may bear repeating. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • After the closing of Thespis, Gilbert produced his second volume of Bab Ballads and eleven plays and comic operas, among other works, before Trial, including The Happy Land (1873), Charity (1874) and Sweethearts (1874). - A little hard to follow
I agree. I don't think we need to name the three plays. I would end it after the word "works". What do you think? -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Good solution. Awadewit (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Shoemaker made a different change, which looks OK to me. How about you? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Sullivan had written various pieces of religious music, including the Festival Te Deum (1872) and an oratorio, The Light of the World (1873), had edited Church Hymns, with Tunes (1874), which included 45 of his own hymns and arrangements,[7] and composed numerous parlour ballads and other songs, including three written with Gilbert in 1874–75: "The Distant Shore", "Sweethearts" (inspired by Gilbert's play) and "The Love That Loves Me Not". - Break into two sentences perhaps?
Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • He asked Sullivan to write something, but had no libretto - Slightly confusing - who had no libretto?
I made changes to clarify. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The result of Gilbert and Sullivan's collaboration was a witty, tuneful and very "English" piece. - What made it "English"? Some Americans might not get that! :)
The references mean NOT FRENCH, like Offenbach, where the chorus girls showed their legs and more. I made a clarification. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what I think of "Launch and aftermath" as a title. "Aftermath" sounds warlike.
Hmmm. It got through FA as a heading in Thespis (opera). -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
That may be - I'm just letting you know what my mind thinks when I read it. :) Awadewit (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Shoe made more changes. Looks OK? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The beginning of the "Analysis of music and text" needs to be written in prose rather than in a bulletted list.
  • I'll let Shoemaker work on that, since he did the research for that. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • See below - converting it into prose would probably mean some trimming, and I want to talk about that with Ssilvers before I do. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, looks done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I wonder if the "Analysis of music and text" couldn't be better titled - it is more about the relationship between Trial by Jury and G&S's other works. An introductory sentence or paragraph might be a good idea, too.
I'll leave it to Shoemaker, but I definitely think that it includes analysis of both music and text. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it is about both music and text, but it seems to be more about a comparison of the music/text of Trial to G&S's other works than just an analysis of Trial, which is what is implied by the current heading. Awadewit (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, it should be more about Trial than about other shows, while putting Trial in context as the beginning of the series of 13 G&S shows that are still widely performed. Shoemaker added more material and moved the stuff about G&S to a new section. Does that change the focus enough to justify the heading name?
  • Is the quotation in "Textual changes" supposed to be italicized?
Yes, Shoemaker is quoting the stage directions, which are given in italics. It says that they are stage directions.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm wondering if the "Textual changes" section should be moved earlier in the article.
I don't think so. Frankly, I don't think the textual changes are very important at all. This is very specialized information for scholars. All these changes happened either right before, or shortly after the original production, and Trial by Jury has been performed for over 130 years with substantially the same text. In fact, 99.9% of directors, producers, performers and audiences members have no idea that there were any textual changes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Right now, the "Reception" section reads like a prose list of quotes.
What changes could one make to fix that? -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Some general comments need to link the quotations together. Awadewit (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Does that do the trick, or is more needed? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
It still feels like a list of quotes - do we need all of those quotes? Awadewit (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The long Punch quote might be a bit long - it's wonderful, but I have a feeling not many people may not read it.
What do you think Shoemaker? It's only three verses. Is there anything wrong with putting in something humorous that only some people will be inclined to read? If one knows the Judge's song, it's funnier, because you can sing it. I suppose we could quote a couple verses of the Judge's song instead.... ? -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
It might work better in the Legacy section, once we have a proper Legacy section, and we should probably include the caricature of Sullivan, too, as we don't have . It's hard to say - it's not directly relevant to Trial by Jury as such, of course, it's more of a demonstration of its influence. Maybe we should move it to the Legacy section, when we have a Legacy section, anyway. Still a fair bit of work to do... =/ Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
LOL! Shoemaker added one of his favorite cartoons. What say you Awadewit: better or worse? Shoemaker, can you make the box any narrower? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I like this sort of thing personally, but I think some FAC reviewers might object. Be ready with a good defense for it! Awadewit (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The "Productions" section needs citations.
  • Do we need a source for the "Historical casting" section?
Hey, good news, looks like the NLS has a copy. It'll be a pain, but I can probably check the page numbers today, and get this done. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Shoe did this, except for a couple of the most recent ones. The information about the most recent casts was added from supplements to Rollins and Witts that are hard to find. It was originally prepared by Marc Shepherd, and Shoe and I are trying to contact him to add the rest of the citations. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "Benefit performances" needs more citations and the Harvard citations need to be changed to footnotes.
  • I think Shoemaker has now added all this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I would remove one of the images from the "Synopsis". Currently, text is sandwiched between the two (see WP:MOS#Images).
  • Actually, the synopsis may be a little short. It might be a better solution to add a little more detail to the synopsis, which would give the images more room to breathe. What do you both think? -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The length of the synopsis seemed fine to me - I am not a fan of overly detailed plot summaries. Awadewit (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Take a look - I think it's better now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
It is still a little smooshed on my screen, but better. Awadewit (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
My experience at FA reviews has been that image sizing guidelines are applied rather flexibly. You want to be able to see what the image is about.... Shoemaker, what's your experience with sizes of similar images in FA articles? -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
It depends on the reviewers you get. I'm simply trying to alert you to possible problems! If you get sticklers, they will argue about this. Sometimes people notice and sometimes they don't. After twenty-some FAs, I have seen the entire spectrum of reviews. Do what you will. Awadewit (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads' up. We'll take a careful look at it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The "Notes" all need to be formatted the same way - I see a few anomalies.
Yes, we'll have to go through them again... and probably again.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The "References" need to be formatted consistently.
Done, I think? -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
No - check place of publication in all references, for example, and one ref appears in code. Awadewit (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope these are helpful as you work towards FAC! Awadewit (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, super! If you don't mind, please see my comments above and see if you can shed any further light. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Responded above. Glad to help! Awadewit (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Historical/first night casting

I don't think the Brent Walker cast should be listed. Otherwise you'd have to list the casts of all the major recordings. If anyone is interested in the Brent Walker video, they need only follow the linke to the discography. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That's fair enough. I mainly threw it in because Gänzl did.

Thanks, I took it out. Also, I took out the 1899 cast - it has no notable cast members that were not already mentioned in the 1898 cast. You could have 1899 INSTEAD of 1898 if you think that is more notable, but there is no need for both. Mark made the decision, which I think was very smart, to give a representation of the most notable information and to try to avoid duplication. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I took out the first night cast section again. Please! We don't need two sections on historical casting. The entire cast is exactly the same in historical casting. I put the information about Penley into the background section, where it fits in very nicely. There I also mention the conductor and music director and the stage manager. We also mention Dolaro and Carte in the background section. I really do not think that we should list the rest of the chorus. Everything else is there except the name of and the assistant music director, who is so not notable. I think we should try very hard to avoid making people's eyes glaze over before they even get to the synopsis. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Um... What about the choristers? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, then. I suppose I was just excited to find the chorus, because they're really difficult to find. =)

Lead image

What is the opening image of, anyway? I've always thought it looked more like a thematic image, pulling together bits and pieces of the opera, than any single scene. ...Eh, well. serves me right for not looking up the image caption when I got the image. I'll check the caption tomorrow, see if it names a specific point in the opera. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you are exactly right, as I mentioned above. But I am interested in what the original caption was. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Status; To do summary

1. Review Awadewit's comments above and work on the remaining ones. I had handled many of them, but quite a few need your attention.

2. Please fix the historical casting table, if you know how, so that it looks nice and neat like the ones at the Pirates of Penzance article.

3. As you noted, the last three fact tags need Marc's help. If Marc doesn't respond to you soon, let me know, and I'll try him.

4. I moved your new sections around to try to put the ones of interest to the most readers (IMO) closer to the top.

5. Companion pieces: You had offered to get some more info on them from Ganzl. I am only interested in the ones for which we already have a Wikipedia article. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Notes to self

  • Check Ainger for any interesting incidents that could be briefly mentioned to add a little vividness to the story of the opera's popularity in Production and Aftermath.
There's an story of a near riot at the Opera Comique over Trial being dropped, but it's so complex... What do you think, S--? 193.130.15.240 (talk) 10:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't have Ainger with me, and I have a big weekend coming up. I'll try to look another day. My basic advice is to keep it simple. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Clarify what "major touring companies" means, insofar as the source is clear on the point.
    • Right. It's a little schitzophrenic, but here's what it says. (All this is Gänzl, p. 90, by the way): The paragraph previous to this one describes a production in Manchester during the original run, under the aegis of Richard D'Oyly Carte. This was with the special permission of Charles Morton, who otherwise monopolised touring rights.
New paragraph.
"Trial by Jury was now the most desirable supporting piece in London. It was given a major revival at the Strand in 1877 and a less propitious and rather poorly cast one at the Royal Aquarium, Westminster. The managers of the latter house found themselves oin court after their production as they had produced it in an area not licenced for dramatic performances. It was hurriedly shifted into the establishment's theatre and played every day as a matinee while the bill remained unchanged. By now, outside London, it formed part of the baggage of all the masjor touring companies and Soldene hhad taken it as far afield as Australia on her world tour."
End paragraph. Next one talks about the Compton and Farren benefits, and early D'Oyly Carte revivals.
Not a masterpiece of clarity, I think you'll agree? Still, it does seem to say that, once the rights became available, it was taken up by all the major British theatrical companies that then toured the provinces.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.130.15.240 (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not comfortable saying "all". Let's say "the major British touring companies" without the word all. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I can live with that. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


  • Double-check refs in Production and Aftermath.
    • Check. Might want a more explicit reference about the American pirate works, but it's good enough.
  • Check original description of Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News.
    • "Scene from "Trial by Jury" at the Royalty Theatre. I checked the issue 6 times, and could find nothing more than that. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Check Burgess, see if he draws substantial enough conclusions that we could, say, draw explicit connections to other Gilbert works.
    • He does not, alas!
  • First Bridesmaids in benefit performances?
    • Only named in the case of the Rignold benefit. (Phyllis Broughton) If she isn't notable, it's probably not worth mentioning. -- 193.130.15.240 (talk) 10:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Check Ainger, hope that he provides a good description of the "burglaree" joke (It's basically the Usher looking around shiftily after having misspoken, right? Always thought that was a nifty way to get around Victorian censorship.) If he does, then it should be fairly easy to convert to prose, so long as I drop the "Tink-a-tank" description (which is really Gilbert, anyway.)
    • Done.

Others: Feel free to add anything that I should do at the library here. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Reginald Allen

1975a is "First Night Gilbert and Sullivan". 1975b is "Sir Arthur Sullivan". This is a common bibliographic convention, but please be careful, as Allen (1975) is now ambiguous. [Not directed at anyone personally, just a reminder]. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead image

You know, thinking about this, this could be "That she is reeling is plain to see", with the Counsel catching the Bride as she starts to (pretend to) faint. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, or it could be during the Counsel's song, or A Nice Dilemma or several other points in the show.... But I think you were right the first time: It is not any particular scene in the piece but instead whimsically shows each character doing something... er... characteristic: The usher is calling for silence; the plaintiff is seeking shelter in the arms of her counsel; the defendant is holding the other woman while waiting to be heard; the judge is commenting to the gallery; the Jury is showing its enchantment with the Plaintiff. I did not put "A Nice Dilemma" in quotes, because I am not referring to the song title, but just giving the image a colorful name. Feel free to remove "A Nice Dilemma" if you think it's inappropriate. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it inappropriate. Just speculating =) By the way, some early music covers used a colourised version of this image. One is reproduced in Burgess. I'd love to get my hand on one of those. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Instant Success

In the Production and Aftermath section contains the line, "In short, it was an instant success." I think a reader should be able to tell from the descriptions of the critical and public response to Trial by Jury that it was an instant success. MarianKroy (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Trial by Jury in New York

[1]

Still trying to figure out how to work this into this article - it's interesting, but I believe it's also a pirated production. If we could get reviews of the Philadelphia one, and perhaps Soldene's world tour, it might be interesting. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

A few comments

I'll be working my way through the article slowly. I may make (hopefully!) uncontroversial changes to the text as I go - style, grammar, that sort of thing - if I see the need. Anything that's potentially controversial I'll put here. Here goes with my first three comments:

  • I really don't care for the abbreviation Trial, which I've never met before (but I haven't moved in G&S circles for several decades). Is it an American usage? The article is written in British English ("favourite", not "favorite"), as far as I've read. If I was writing about HMS Pinafore I might use Pinafore for variety, but Trial grates. If I was writing about Roberto Devereux I wouldn't refer to it as "Roberto" or "Devereux" but would talk of "the opera" when necessary. Maybe it's just me.
  • Thanks, I have received the same comment from several people. I think G&S people always refer to it as "Trial", but if it looks funny to other readers, it should be changed, and so I have done so. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • In the lead, the term "comic opera" is used. Why is this preferred to "dramatic cantata" (the original designation) or "operetta", used in a quote in the lead and in the New Grove Dictionary of Opera?
  • Basically, Gilbert tended to invent nonce terms for all his operas, such as "aesthetic opera", "fairy opera", and so on. "comic opera", though, is the term used by them for G&S in general, and is the term that has generally been settled on by scholars in the field. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The original TBJ in Fun is described in the lead as "a piece of comic verse". It isn't comic verse as such, as it's described as an operetta in Fun and is clearly cast as a sort-of-libretto. Furthermore, it isn't all in verse. Further down, in "Genesis of the opera", it's referred to as a Bab Ballad. Why? It's nothing like the real Bab Ballads. The Bab Ballads article does not list it as appearing in any of the volumes published by Gilbert, so HE clearly didn't think of it as one, and that seems to me to be the clinching argument, unless James Ellis, whoever he was, has a hot-line to Gilbert's ghost. Also, the BB article says

    Most writers have accepted as "Bab Ballads" any poetry (whether illustrated or not) that Gilbert contributed to periodicals, not counting poems written or repurposed as operatic lyrics.

    As TBJ isn't a poem and was mostly repurposed (ugh!) as operatic lyrics, I rest my case.
  • Checking several sources, Bradley calls it his "initial sketch", I can't find any appropriate description in Crowther or Stedman, mind you, he indexes to those works leave much to be desired. I tend to agree with you, and shall change it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • ...Ugh. That section's wasn't very well-written, was it? "Based on Gilbert's training and brief practice as a barrister, this piece spoofed the law, lawyers and the legal system, a favourite target of Gilbert's, who had a brief legal career." ...Ugh. I think that section's a relic of the old article, which did have some severe prose issues. I was hoping all of it would be fixed when we added sources, evidently not. I've fixed it up a bit, probably will keep poking at it for a while. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm off to cook dinner now. Expect more nit-picking from me later this evening. --GuillaumeTell 17:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to say that, having read through the whole thing, it's easier for me from now on to edit the article section by section. Feel to revert (with reasons) or query what I've done. I don't have much quarrel with the content - I'm talking about phraseology and suchlike. Hope this is OK. Just dealt with the lead.... --GuillaumeTell 17:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Good changes to the lead. I put back the reference to Savoy Theatre however, as I think it adds clarity, and I took out the reference to "Yeomen" and instead said "most" of the G&S operas, because it felt like a reference to "Yeomen" here was distracting. If you feel very strongly about either of these, feel free to revert. Will look through your other comments. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I see that Awadewit agrees with me over the Savoy Theatre! I should have made the point thats that anybody wanting to know why the Savoy Operas are so called can just click the link and the info is in the third line. --GuillaumeTell 17:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, true enough. I'm happy to be outvoted. Thanks for all your help on the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Dramatis personae, Synopsis, musical numbers

  • Dramatic personae??? Is there some good reason for using this ancient and poncey-sounding term? Why not a table of roles and first performers as is standard in Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera? It looks rather amateurish at present.
  • We have a complete "Historical Casting" section below (and in the other G&S opera articles), giving the names of the performers. I have suggested deleting this section in the past. The only thing missing in the historical casting section is the vocal ranges. This section mimics a page in the vocal score. Shoemaker, if you still want to retain this section, we could call it "Roles" or "Characters" I guess. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    I have altered "Dramatis Personae" to "Roles", as that's what the section is called in all of the other G&S opera articles.Marc Shepherd (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Why is the First Bridesmaid listed in the dramatis whatsis? She has no solo that I'm aware of and the only difference between her and the rest of the bridesmaids is that the Judge ogles her and sends her a note. If she must be listed, is she a soprano or what?
  • She only sings with the chorus, so she can sing with either the sopranos or altos. Most often, she has been a soprano. But she was always listed in D'OC programmes and considered an indispensable character in the opera. In addition to the comic business with the Judge, she also had considerable business with the Defendant. Shoe, what do you think we should do? -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the only valid reason for listing the role is that Gilbert himself listed it in the libretto. The only place she's given anything to do is in the stage directions. Marc Shepherd (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The First Bridesmaid is given a fairly prominent scene early in the opera, and is specifically assigned this in the libretto. It's not a huge part, but, unlike the associate, it would probably be a loss to the opera if she was not included. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Who is this non-singing Associate and what is his role, if any, in the action? I'm aware that Gilbert sometimes amused himself by appearing in the part, but is it really a part?
  • Yes, once the role was established, it was included in nearly all the D'OC productions for over a century. Lionel Monckton once played the role, and it is often used by companies today for a visiting dignitary (Mayor, etc) or celebrity. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
This doesn't answer my question. The Associate is listed as a character but he isn't mentioned in the synopsis. Is he mentioned in the libretto? Regardless of who played him, what does he actualy do? --GuillaumeTell 10:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
He is shown prominently in the lead image in the article, sitting under the judge. The only place that I see him referred to in the libretto is under 'Dramatis Personae'. What he originally did is described in Gilbert's plot books that the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company used for stage management (he didn't do much), but that is not part of the libretto, and outside of the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company, directors have felt free to use or not use the character depending on their own concepts of the court proceedings. Shoe, can you add anything here? -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Gilbert himself listed the role of the Associate in the libretto. Unlike the First Bridesmaid, he didn't explicitly give the character anything to do. I support listing it here mainly because the author did. Marc Shepherd (talk) 17:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I personally consider him the Trial by Jury equivalent to James, or, perhaps, Jasper Murgatroyd. A theoretical character who very few (if any) modern productions include. I'm not even entirely convinced he appeared in performances before the benefit for Gilbert - I'd have to recheck Ganzl, but if he did appear, one would think we'd have him listed in the cast list. In any case, he's a glorified chorister at best, living scenery at worst. Possibly even a distraction to the more important plot. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm on the trail of Associates. These days, the term seems to be mainly (only?) in use in Australia, and seems to mean what we in Britain would now call a Judge's clerk (aka dogsbody), and I'd guess that that's what it meant in England in 1875. There is actually a WP article called (oh, dear) Judges associate, which I might try to improve - but better not link to it just yet. --GuillaumeTell 21:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Two things relating to the table of casts:

  • There is a 1 superscript for 2 different characters/singers in the 1875 and 1877 casts. Is it really true that both of these were replaced by George Leitch?
  • I think we should delete the footnote. Leitch is a non-notable cast replacement – seems like utterly trivial info. Same with Campbell and Kelleher, whom you mention below. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • More important: my only book about G&S (a 14th birthday present from my parents and grandmother, since you ask) is the 4th ed of Leslie Baily's The Gilbert and Sullivan Book. On p, 127, there is a reproduction of what is described as the first-night programme of TBJ. This has the 1875 premiere cast as shown in the table (i.e. no mention of the Associate). Now, in the Production and Aftermath section of the article, there's an image of what is described as "Programme cover for TBJ", which actually doesn't mention TBJ (AFAICS), notwithstanding the G&S cherubs: It's a cover for La Périchole. If you click on the image, the description mentions this page,

    which is actually p.3 of what was, according to the Rochester folks (on this page), a 4 page programme from April 1875 (i.e. not the premiere). So - 1. The Périchole cover isn't the original first-night cover (the article doesn't say that it is; Baily says that Carte had the programme altered to give more prominence to G&S during the run); 2. The piece that replaced Cryptoconchoidsyphonostomata was called The Secret (rather than "another work") and 3. the TBJ cast, above, has Mr C Campbell as the Foreman, Charles Kelleher as the Usher AND Mr B R Pepper as the Associate (other singers as at the premiere). So the role of the Associate appeared for the first time within a few weeks of the premiere. Hercule Poirot, aka GuillaumeTell 00:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • What is the point of including the first lines of musical numbers (correctly, in my opinion) in the synopsis and then listing them all over again in a separate section?
  • Over to you, Shoe. I have no strong opinion here, except that if we are taking them out of one section, I would take them out of the synopsis. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree - it's more useful to have them in chart form than in the synopsis. Putting them in the synopsis is very... You know those short synopses you get with CDs and tapes? Very much like them, not so much like an encyclopedia. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Just noting that members of the Opera Project these days prefer to put them in the synopsis - but that's just "noted arias" rather than the complete sequence of numbers. What's lost here by removing them from the synopsis (which actually now looks a lot better than it did, and I've tidied it further) is the exact place where they occur - is there some way of putting notes into the synopsis which point to the relevant numbers? --GuillaumeTell 21:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

More later, perhaps. --GuillaumeTell 21:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, the GA Review comments below will need discussing and addressing asap, so I'll put my effort on hold for now, if that's OK. Feel free to get back to me (if you wish) when you've dealt with what Awadewit says (or if you want another opinion on anything at any point), and I'll have another look. Please don't ask me to do the MOS stuff, though. Congrats on the GA, of course! Best to all. --GuillaumeTell 16:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Punch - Sullivan's knighthood.png

I am struggling to work out the relevance of this image to the article. First, it is dated 1880 - that's 5 years after TBJ. Second, "When Arthur first at Court began" is described as an "Old Nursery Song adapted to a Pinafore Air". That's HMS Pinafore, not TBJ - and it clearly relates to "When I was a lad I served a term". The text beneath is indeed related to the Learned Judge's song, but did this text actually appear along with the (it seems to me) utterly irrelevant picture, or has someone somewhere joined the two together like the fake statue of the Emperor Hadrian in the British Museum? --GuillaumeTell 00:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

They were published together, but I don't like having the picture in this article and would vote for keeping only the text beneath it. Thanks for taking a look at the article, GT. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

As the person who dug out the original, I can assure you these appeared together. The "nursery tune to a pinafore air" presumably refers to "When Arthur first at court began". No, I don't get it either. If it was Iolanthe, that might make sense "When I went to the bar as a very young man..." - but then, Punch often seems to be one of the main repositories of jokes that only make sense to their creators. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Proofreader's thoughts

  • The section head, "Trial by Jury initiates Savoy opera" goes against the Manual of Style suggestion that heads and subheads avoid repeating the main words of the article title. Better might be "First Savoy opera". Also, it would be a good idea to include a phrase somewhere in the main text of this section that says that TBJ was the first of the Savoy operas and not let the weight of this information fall on the section head alone.
  • The sentence in "Production history" that reads: "The following table summarises the main London productions of Trial by Jury during Gilbert's and Sullivan's lifetimes" is problematic in that the dual possessive is odd and that the two lifetimes don't exactly match. Perhaps "through Sullivan's death in 1900" would be better. Finetooth (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Something is amiss in "Analysis of music and text". The sentences including: "He underlines the Counsel's misstatement in the line "To marry to at once is burglaree" with a comic bassoon "sting" in octaves.[27] scene-setting by having a guitar tuned on stage (simulated by a violin in the pit);[58]" are awry. The second "to" should probably be "two", but the bigger problem is that something is missing before "scene-setting". Finetooth (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Good catch. I fixed the "two" and added something about the guitar to complete the sentence fragment, but Shoe, please check to be sure that that is what you meant. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think that was a bullet-point I didnt' convert. I didn't like the phrasing, so I tweaked it a little, but that's what I meant. Kind of reminds me of the cracked voice joke in "A tenor all singers above", or the sudden reversion into realistic accents at the start of act II of the (revised) Sorcerer - a sudden stop to holding up the operatic conventions. That's Original Research, of course. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Finetooth for the excellent MOS checking and proofreading. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Cut paragraph

Soon after the premiere of Trial by Jury, Sullivan produced another one-act opera with librettist B. C. Stephenson, The Zoo, which played as an afterpiece to Gilbert's new play, Tom Cobb. This was only modestly successful, but it is still performed today and emphasizes Sullivan's focus on comic opera by 1875.[1][2] When the opportunity arose to work with Gilbert in creating The Sorcerer in 1877, Sullivan readily agreed.

This was kind of awkwardly placed, and its obvious antecedent - the discussion of Cox and Box and Sullivan seeking out Millaud - didn't really allow this to be included there without a very awkward break in chronology. I did work in the information, but in a much reduced form: "Gilbert and Sullivan continued their separate careers (though both continued writing light opera), and did not collaborate again until The Sorcerer in 1877." - there's a footnote to that listing the operas. Do we really need an explicit main-text reference to The Zoo? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I can live with cutting this, BUT: It's very interesting that Zoo was a) so similar to Trial in structure (e.g. use of chorus), and its "English" setting and style, etc.; b) produced so soon after Trial and c) so obviously an attempt to capitalize off of the success of Trial. However, we already have a lengthy footnote about the idea that Zoo was actually begun before Trial and sort of pushed aside by the Gilbert project. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I'm just not sure where to put it in. It doesn't really fit into any of the headings, and it's not important enough for its own heading. How about we instead discuss it in the Gilbert and Sullivan article, with the Cox and Box and Millaud stuff? I think it would fit in very well there? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I don't think it is important enough for the G&S article. The G&S article could be hundreds of pages long, but stuff about Sullivan's other operas needs to be boiled down to a bare minimum in the G&S article. More likely the Sullivan article, if anywhere. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think it's fairly notable that, right after TBJ, Sullivan goes on and does another opera in a very similar format. I leave it to y'all as to how it should flow, but I wouldn't delete it. Marc Shepherd (talk) 16:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I put a shorter version into the "Production and Aftermath" section. It doesn't explicitly point out how similar Zoo is to Trial. Is Eyes and No Eyes so different? Should we call Eyes a comic opera? Comments please. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Waaay too much detail, I've cut it down to a brief list. Otherwise, it pulls discussion of Trial to a halt to list a bunch of uninteresting names of collaborators, theatres, and dates - the reader isn't going to know who these people, theatres and such are, and we're not talking enough about them to make it worth it. They can click if they're interested. As for discussing The Zoo, if we can find a source comparing and contrasting, say, Cox and Box, the Zoo, and Trial at reasonable length, then I'm in favour of adding a section on Sullivan's one-act operas. But without a source, however much it may interest us, it's original research and we can't use it on Wikipedia. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Temporary move to talk page.

  • Fitz-Gerald, S. J. Adair (1924). The Story of the Savoy Opera. London: Stanley Paul & Co., Ltd.


-We don't reference it yet. =) If we end up finding that all we'd want to take from it is already in the article, we'd end up with an orphaned reference. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've read it. It's an excellent work, but we've covered the material therein quite well. Lots of interesting stuff on Toto, and I will get the book, but not worth referencing here, after all we've referenced already. 193.130.15.240 (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Formatting of lyrics

In the places where song text is quoted, would it be of value to use the <poem> tag? I tried to adjust the body to use that and look identical, but it didn't come out quite the same (couldn't make it indent). Is it intended to be indented (now, that's a good test of diction... deliver that sentence to the gallery!)?

Current text of page:

"Oh, gentlemen, listen, I pray,
    Though I own that my heart has been ranging,
Of nature the laws I obey,
    For nature is constantly changing.
The moon in her phases is found,
    The time and the wind and the weather,
The months in succession come round,
    And you don't find two Mondays together...."

Alternate:

"Oh, gentlemen, listen, I pray,
    Though I own that my heart has been ranging,
Of nature the laws I obey,
    For nature is constantly changing.
The moon in her phases is found,
    The time and the wind and the weather,
The months in succession come round,
    And you don't find two Mondays together...."

Rosuav (talk) 06:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hm... LEt me try this with <blockquote>


"Oh, gentlemen, listen, I pray,
    Though I own that my heart has been ranging,
Of nature the laws I obey,
    For nature is constantly changing.
The moon in her phases is found,
    The time and the wind and the weather,
The months in succession come round,
    And you don't find two Mondays together...."

Let's go with that! -- unsigned comment from Shoe

Many thanks Shoe! I've done the changes. Unfortunately blockquote conflicts somehow with the table structure used for the right-hand boxes, so I've done it without blockquote for those. If you can figure out a way to make it not double-space them, I'd love to see how.

Rosuav (talk) 07:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Report

Neither book had anything worth including that wasn't in there already. The Fitz-Gerald book is well-written and well-researched, the Fitzgerald book not so much, though it has some useful commentary on lesser works by Gilbert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.130.15.240 (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The S. J. Adair Fitz-Gerald book has a lot of errors, but it's useful because it was written when the original productions were still within living memory. It is therefore quotable for historical perspective, but on pure matters of fact I would always look for another source. Marc Shepherd (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it's by no means the best source, but, for its time period, it's surprisingly good (at least for Trial by Jury - I haven't read it in full. Far better than Walbrook or Percy Fitzgerald, for instance. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Historical importance and analysis of text and music

This is an awfully ungainly section title. I would just call it "Analysis of text and music," or even more compactly, "Analysis". Really, the only part of the section that doesn't quite fit is the Reginald Allen quote that kicks it off. That quote could be moved elsewhere. Marc Shepherd (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's gone through several changes in title, and Analysis does cover it all. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of moving the quote (and the preceding sentence?) up under the first paragraph of the Background section? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Uncertain: A good half of that section can be summarised as "Elements X, Y, and Z are in Trial, this set a pattern for later collaborations. Perhaps it might make more sense to move the Crowther discussion down, and maybe split the section again. Then it splits neatly in two - a short section on Gilbert and Sullivan's development and discussion of specifics in Trial, and a longer one pointing out Trial's legacy. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Trial by Jury/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article undoubtedly meets the GA criteria. I have offered a rather in-depth review, since I know that the editors are aiming to take the article to FAC in the future. Here are my comments and suggestions:

  • I feel like the second paragraph of the lead doesn't quite flow yet - the first sentence doesn't quite flow the rest of the paragraph.
  • Looks better now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Critics and audiences noted how Sullivan's musical effects and settings added to the wit of the piece and served as a particularly effective foil to the satire in the text - Is there any way to explain in one sentence how this worked rather than to just say that it did?
  • I've had a go. It's of course difficult to describe music in text, but I think it now at least gives a general idea, that can be expanded on later on. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Meanwhile, Sullivan's thoughts may have turned to light opera in late 1874, as he visited Paris to meet with Albert Millaud, who had provided some libretti for Jacques Offenbach. - Please explain why Sullivan would have turned his thoughts to light opera while meeting with Millaud.
  • This appears to be a misunderstanding of the source. What Ainger actually says is that Sullivan's previous light opera, Cox and Box was revived in London to some success, then Sullivan contacted Millaud, a writer of light opera lyrics. Ainger's conclusion is that Sullivan may have already been thinking about light opera before he it was proposed that he set Trial. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I wonder if the "Genesis of the Opera" section isn't a bit too detailed - the details about Sullivan, for example, come very late. Perhaps remove some of the detail regarding the failures?
  • The failures are documented at much greater length in all the sources, not to include them would probably
  • Shoe apparantly fell asleep while typing the above fragment  :) but I think the stories behind Gilbert's difficulties in getting the piece produced, and Sullivan's return to light opera, should interest many readers. Let's see what FA commenters say. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I still think more summary style is possible here. For example, do we need to know that the actress died in childbirth? This is one of the longest sections of the article and it doesn't actually deal directly with the play itself. It is something to think about. Awadewit (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think, in the end, if it doesn't go here, where does it go? This is basic information found in any publication covering the genesis of Trial by Jury, and it can hardly be appropriate to upmerge it to Gilbert and Sullivan =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The order of the "Production and aftermath" section could be better, I think. The details about the individual actors, for example, seem less important than the details about the how the play was presented - as part of three-play performance, etc. - and its popularity. Perhaps these performance details could go first?
  • OK, done. I also streamlined and removed some of the less important details about Penley.
  • Are both of the images in the "Synopsis" section drawn by Gilbert? If so, both should be marked as such in the captions.
  • Done. The first caption is a description, not a formal name, so I removed the quotes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The article seems to mix the language of a criminal court with that of a civil court. This may be a US distinction and that is why I am confused, but is the couple in a civil or a criminal court?
  • We give a reference and link at the top of the synopsis, to explain the reason why the trial is held in the Court of the Exchequer. So you have spotted a legal anomaly that must have amused Gilbert: This type of civil action was tried in what was essentially a tax court. Damages are sought, but jokes are made about criminal law (particularly that the Defendant's actions were criminal). -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Excellent - that is interesting! Awadewit (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The second paragraph of the "Synopsis" is a little hard to read because of the punctuation. It is entirely correct - it is just makes it hard to read. Is there any way to remove quotations or rearrange the placement of song titles to make it easier on the eyes?
  • Fixed by taking out the song titles, which duplicated those listed under Musical numbers. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • As I said in my other review, I think the listy-ness of the quotes in the "Reception" section is a problem. You might have to remove some. The whole section is basically quotation - there is no paraphrase of any kind and very little summary to guide the reader.
  • I did some work on this. OK now, or needs more paraphrasing? -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I hate to keep harping on this, but this is the weakest area of the article. Notice how the first paragraph says "Publication X said "...", Publication Y said "...", etc. Also there are two large block quotes. I would pick one of the two. Readers cannot follow so many quotations - they get lost without guiding topic sentences every once in a while and will definitely give up reading so many quotations - especially our readers! Awadewit (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I went through again and made some changes, including cutting down one of the block quotes. I think that now each quote makes a separate point and is introduced by topic sentences, but let us know if you see more work that needs to be done here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Sad to say, I think a lot of readers are going to miss the significance of the knight quote and cartoon, so I wonder if it would be better to find something a little more accessible.
  • Well, I think there is a consensus that the image ought to go, so I removed it (and we cut out one of the verses). Without the image, I think the quote is less confusing. I wouldn't mind another box with an excerpt of song lyrics.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Some of the material in the first and second paragraphs of "Analysis of music and text" seems like it belongs in the "Trial by Jury initiates Savoy Operas" section. Break up what Crowther has said about Trial specifically from what he has said about Trial as part of the Savoy Operas. I think some of the material in the first paragraph of "TbJ inititaes SO", for example, the details about how the plot works, could actually be in the "Analysis of music and text" section. I think this division is a good idea, but I think the division isn't quite logical yet.
  • Shoe, can you work on this one? -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The third paragraph of "Analysis of music and text" is a long list of the jokes that becomes hard to read. These need to be broken up so that the reader can more easily read the text.
  • Do we need all of these tables of performances? Are each of these performances important enough to record? I know some theatrical performances are very important, but it is hard for the reader to tell why these particular performances are important just from these tables, if you see what I mean.
  • Shoe, let's discuss this before doing anything drastic. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • A paragraph explaining the importance of the performances would help, too. Awadewit (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I added a little bit of explanation to the introduction to the table. Shoe, do you remember a source where there is a discussion of how the DOC continued to influence performance practice even after the copyright expired, or just its general importance to performance practice? -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think that Awadewit's questions above have been satisfactorily addressed. The table looks like cast-lists taken from random programmes hoarded by some G&S obsessive (apologies to anyone here if this offends you). As someone coming fresh to this article, I found the whole section bizarre in the extreme and it seems to me to unbalance the entire article. BTW, I have a 1969 programme with a whole lot of singers who don't appear in any of the ones here (and also an English Opera Group programme of 1974 which is probably more interesting than 90% of these!). My vote is to spin off the tables into a separate article (and that goes for the benefit performances, too). What might substitute for the tables here would be something like "noted performers of the role of x for the D'O C company between 1875 and 19xx have included a, b, c". The benefits intro as it currently stands would suffice without the benefits table.
  • I plan to read through the article with a fresh eye again within the next few days, if that's OK. --GuillaumeTell 21:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Do we know anything about the costuming, set design, or orchestration for the show? These are some of the areas not covered that I can think of that might need to be covered.
  • Before FAC, the article needs to undergo a WP:MOS sweep. Dates need to be standardized and linked, hyphens and dashes need to be fixed, etc.

I hope this helps out as you work towards FAC! Awadewit (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Awadewit, for your thoughtful comments. These are very helpful! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Main page run

A little late to get this up for this year, want to ask for this to run next year, or should we just ask Raul to shove it in wherever? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Next year would be fine. It's the 135th anniversary next year. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Mr Ringold

May I ask for a check on the spelling? I think I remember from seeing an archive mention elsewhere that it was in fact Rignold, as in Hugo (who was possibly a descendant). Tim riley (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right. I see George Rignold and Walter Rignold (brothers?) and a Lionel Rignold (panto actor) in this period. I'm still looking. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This article says "William Ringold". Could it be a typo?: http://www.eupjournals.com/doi/abs/10.3366/E1355550208000337?journalCode=jvc The footnote says Gänzl, p 97. Do you have it? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No, but I have The Times - 13 December 1902, p. 8, apropos of the William Rignold fund - "the net profit of the Lyric Theatre matinée on December 5th, £575 1s 7d." (which measured against average earnings is about a quarter of a million in current terms). Be that as it may, Rignold it clearly is. And yes, you're right that George Rignold was a brother - he took part in that same benefit perf (in a Shakespeare scene, not in Trial) as noted in The Times. Tim riley (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: A Humerous Knight

Note, that although largely base on Trial By Jury, the penultimate verse (the last shown here), is implicitly referencing HMS Pinafore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.18.240 (talk) 05:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Filmed version -- add to recordings?

I'm not sure whether it's of interest for this article, but there is a recent (2005) production by Opera Australia (along with HMS Pinafore) that was filmed and is available on DVD from Kultur: http://www.kultur.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=D4080 Dave Brown (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. The Opera Australia production is in modern dress, but It is probably worth listing, so I'll do it. There are not that many videos of professional productions of Trial by Jury available. We already list the Brent Walker video, which was more widely marketed than the Opera Australia version - It was made for TV in both Britain and North America (also down under?). But it seems to be out of print. There is also the Gilbert and Sullivan for All video and this one, but neither of these has ever been available on DVD, and they may be nearly impossible to get at all. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Title in italics

Shouldn't the template {{italic title}} be applied to make the article title appear in italics? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Added. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Trial by Jury. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Quoteboxes

User:Adam Cuerden, would you please look at the past couple of edits and see if you can fix the issue raised by the editor? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, the point of that is to set a maximum width it can't go over.... Having played around with it, anything that narrow should have jumped to the mobile site, which deals with the issue itself, so I just lost max width. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs 05:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Adam! -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  1. ^ Gänzl (1986), p. 90
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Ainger109 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trial_by_Jury/Archive_1&oldid=1153081129"