This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism 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.
The text reads: "Burnand used his position as the editor of Punch to publish antagonistic reviews of the works of Gilbert and refused to give the Savoy Operas reviews in the magazine." but the first and second halves of that sentence seem mutually exclusive. He either gave them bad reviews or no reviews - but not both. Tim riley (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I had the same thought, but on looking closer, it seems that the source is saying that he published antagonistic reviews of gilbert PLAYS, but he did not publish any reviews at all of the G&S operas. I would like to ask Stedman if that is what she meant, but she's dead and pretty smelly by now. Any suggestions on how to clarify it without making a bigger deal of it than it already is? -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I have expanded and partly rearranged the article. Comments and amendments cordially invited. In particular, have I put too much emphasis on Burnand's envy of Gilbert? One strives to be even-handed, but a fresh pair or two of eyes would be welcome. Tim rileytalk 18:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Target of parody of Black-eyed Susan: no idea. This was as it was when I started to interfere. Quite happy to see it trimmed.
Can you look into your sources to try to figure out whether he is parodying the Gay song or the later nautical melodrama? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah HAH! It is Jerrold, as I suspected. See this. Also, note that Burnand's 2nd wife appears in it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Who's Who says 800 nights, but now you ask me to look I see Who's Who in the Theatre says 400. Take your choice. Burnand may have been exaggerating in his very characteristic and rumbustious Who's Who entry. Tim rileytalk 20:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Certainly 400 is more plausible. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The Gilbert quote is rather too short to need to be set out like that, and putting it into the text in regular quotes would help with your original concern that the bio is giving Gilbert too much prominence. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but it breaks up the slab of prose, and spares the reader's eye, surely? Tangentially, this quite famous quote reminds me to add an even more famous one by Burnand himself: to someone who said "Punch is not as good as it was", he replied, "It never was". Must get that in. Tim rileytalk 20:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I can only say that I do not prefer the series of four stubby little paragraphs that this creates. Just my opinion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)