Talk:His Majesty's Theatre, London/Archive 1

Disambiguation

Is there only one Her Majesty's Theatre in the world? Deb 19:05, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, there's another one in australia: http://www.hermaj.com/

Disambiguation should occur when necessary, not speculatively. Gillian Tipson 23:57, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

GA nominee

Please feel free to help improve the article. Kbthompson (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

GA review

First GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria) Needs more coverage of the current architecture and playing companies. Way too much detail on the first theatre, lacking coverage on the others. It is reasonably well written. a (prose): b (MoS): Some awkward phrasing, and needs to have quotations in quote marks, not italics. It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): needs a number of quotations with footnotes It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): needs much broader coverage on the current theatre. It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions): Overall: Pass/Fail: Details: Per the Wikipedia: Manual of Style, quotations go inside " marks, not in italics. All quotations need to be changed to conform to the MOS. Also, Wikipedia: Citing sources requires that all direct quotations have a footnote attached to the quote itself, even if it is in middle of a sentence. Avoid using "However" as the first word of the sentence. I've marked specific instances below History section, vanbrugh's theatre subsection. Second paragraph, the third sentence starts with 'however'. Consider rewording. Same section, subsection and paragraph, and sentence. Italian opera should be wikilinked and NOT in italics, per the MOS. same section, subsection paragraph, last paragraph. Quotation needs a footnote on the quotation itself. same section and subsection. third paragraph. The sentence "Following his person success..." is very awkward. Consider rewording. Same section and subsection, fourth paragraph, the first sentence is very long and run on. Consider rewording. Same section and subsection. fifth paragraph, the third sentence has a quotation that needs a direct footnote on it. Does Giovanni Andrea Battista Gallini have an article? If so, it should be wikilinked. Same section and subsection, sixth paragraph, the (unwisely) is an opinion and should be attributed to someone, or removed. That sentence is also awkward, and consider rewording the last phrases and the next sentence. I think these mean that Taylor was soon to be bankrupt, but if so, how is he buying out Sheridan's interest in the next sentence? Same section and subsection and paragraph. the sentence starting "In 1788, the lord ..." has a quotation that needs to have a footnote right on it.Same for the sentence starting "Gallini tried to keep ..." Same section, Second theatre subsection, first paragraph, the sentence "As a later manager..." has a quotation that needs direct attribution. Same section and subsection, first paragraph, why is "General Opera Trust Deed" italicized? Same section and subsection, fifth paragraph, why is Ballet of her Majesty's Theatre italicized? Same section and subsection, sixth paragraph the last sentences need a source citation because of the "all of whom achieved fame" phrase in there. Same section and subsection, eighth paragraph, why is the bit about what premiered the performances of the Theatre Royal in an article about Her Majesty's? Same section and subsection. There are mentions of the destruction of the second theatre, but no specific paragraph addresses this, all the references are in passing. This should at least be covered directly. Same section, third theatre subsection, second paragraph has a quotation that needs a direct footnote on it. Same section, Phipps' theatre subsection third paragraph, the last sentence needs a souce citation because of the "Considerable success" bit. same section and subsection, consider splitting off the last paragraph into a "current setting" or some such section. More information on the actual architecture of the building is needed. There is not much description of the current building at all. There is too much information on the early history and the details of the performance companies and not enough on the actual architecture and current status of the building and company. As another example of a theatre GA: Chicago Theatre Pictures, some of the captions are not very well done. I'm not sure at times why the picture is in the article. IS the "Italian Opera House, Haymarket" THIS theatre? Or another? I can't see that the theatre is ever referred to in the text as Haymarket, but I assume that it is since the two captions refer to the pictures as being the Haymarket Opera House, and surely the pictures wouldn't be in the article if they weren't of the theatre itself. Pictures. Who are the artists of some of these paintings and portraits? When were they painted? References, they need to be formated with more information than just a bald external links. Also the footnotes need to be in a standard format. Some of the books are formated one way, some of the others are in another format. I'm failing the article. It's close, but it still needs a bunch of organizational work. The main issue is the lack of current coverage so the article fails the broad coverage criteria. Ealdgyth | Talk 14:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC) Comments I think I have fixed most of the problems you have identified. It would probably be good if a collaborator could do a copyed on my additions and elisions. There are a couple of difficulties I have in understanding your critiques: Giovanni Andrea Battista Gallini, does not have a wiki article. Should one become available I would be glad to link to it. There is too much information on the early history and the details of the performance companies and not enough on the actual architecture and current status of the building and company. OK, I put my hand up to not providing much detail on the current building. The former history of the building is significant, it being a part of the triumvirate of 17th century theatres and performing a major part in the development of theatre, opera and ballet in London. Some of the ballet details were 'inherited' and personally I found them a little florid, but we have managed to find refs for it. The various machinations around ownership and the premières of Handel, Mozart and Haydn are all significant aspects in the history of the theatre. I liked the bits about the premieres of Handel, Mozart, etc. And I understand all about 'inheriting' prose .. lots of my articles have had that issue. You hate to cut it but finding refs for it is a pain... This section has been much improved, btw. You might consider putting in something about what you just said above "It being a part of the triumvirate of 17th century theatres and performing a major part in the development of theatre, opera, and ballet in London." Not being a big "theater" fan, some of the details didn't quite make sense to me that they were forming a point that this was a BIG name in the history of theatre in London. Never underestimate the lack of knowledge of the common person. Instead hit them on the head with the information. Say "This was one of a three theatres that significantly contributed to the formation of the current theatre scene in London." or something similiar. Ealdgyth | Talk 19:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC) Good idea, I'll try to work it in. In doing the research for filling out the article, I came across name of Handel, Mozart and Haydn - then had the devils own job to find out the relationship to the theatre! Kbthompson (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC) The various names of the theatre are dealt with in the text and the infobox. The names appearing in the captions to the images are contemporaneous with the date of the prints. Am I imagining that you bolded the various names? If I'm not imagining that, it's a big help. If I am imagining it, I blame the lack of caffeine and having to get up way to early this morning for missing it.Ealdgyth | Talk 19:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC) I'm afraid it's your imagination. The boldened names represented the redirects that point to this article (per WP:MoS), of course having another look, I found two more and a plausible explanation for why some of the names ended up in italics! Kbthompson (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC) A more sensible pattern is surely Theatre Royal, Drury Lane - which is a FA, and has a similarly complex history. I'll ask my collaborator to fix some of the captions. References have full access, title information, author and publication - what else do you wish? - I understand now .... I reorganised the information about the current theatre, I'll extend the architectural section - but am anxious not to base it too much on the language of the available sources. Much better information on the building. It helps to explain why the building was listed.Ealdgyth | Talk 19:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC) Thank you, I think it still needs some tweaks. Kbthompson (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC) I think moving forward, I would have preferred you to put the article 'on hold' rather than a straight fail, as I feel that many of your criticisms have now been addressed, or can be dealt with within the allowed time. That was a LOT of work to be on the plate in seven days. I try to remember that not everyone has tons of time to edit Wikipedia. If you are upset that I didn't place it on hold, feel free to take it to GAR, or if you'd like, you can finish up, let me know, renom, and I'll grab it off the nominations and rereview it quickly. One thing that struck me was that there was only the main section. Looking at drury lane (and I agree, that is a good comparison) see how the various buildings are under sections? It makes the coverage look more balanced that way, I'd think. The current organization is much better also, gives more weight to the modern building, which before was getting lost in all the history. It was a close decision, and in the end I didn't want to put someone under some looming time deadline with that much work to do. Like I said, we can go either the GAR route or the renom and grab route. Certainly, I don't expect you to wait another freaking month and more to get another review, so don't worry about that. (For which I apologize, by the way...) Ealdgyth | Talk 19:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC) I'm happy to get it in a state where we think it will meet your stringent criteria and let you know. The more of this that's achieved at this stage will make the FA application that much smoother. There's no need to apologise, it's whatever gets the article improved. Kbthompson (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC) Lastly, I would like to thank you for taking the time to read the article in such depth and providing such expansive comments on the text. It is very helpful and provides a roadmap for taking the article forward. Kbthompson (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

GA review 2

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

Looks great! I tweaked a picture to have the caption show, that was it that I saw.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Great work! Passing it now. Ealdgyth | Talk 15:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that, and a very thorough review. This helps no end in moving it forward to FA. Cheers. Kbthompson (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Assessment

I assessed the article as "high" importance for the Theatre project. Maybe it's top, but I'll leave it to the project folks if they wish to promote it more. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Second theatre section

Congrats on the GA award. I thought maybe you could do with a fresh eye before the FA pace hots up. I've already corrected an obviously wrong date, and a couple of other things in this section also seem to me to need a look:

The raw version of part of the text currently says:

until 1794 it was the home of the [[Theatre Royal, Drury Lane]] company, while that company's home theatre was itself rebuilt and renamed the [[Theatre Royal, Drury Lane|Haymarket Opera House]].<ref name=Lloyd/>

Three interlocking points here. First, the impression given to a new reader (me) is that it was Drury Lane that was renamed Haymarket Opera House; second, whether or not that's true (and I bet it isn't), the piping of Haymarket to Drury Lane is truly bizarre; third, the Lloyd ref makes no mention of "Haymarket Opera House", so an extra source is needed. I hope I am making myself clear.

I'm also concerned that there seems to be a massive amount about ballet and not a lot about opera in this section. There were zillions of British premières of Rossini operas in the theatre and who knows what else. I can add some stuff (from Opera Grove) reasonably easily.

I wonder if this section, and probably others, could perhaps be broken up with sub-headings, as the paras seem pretty long. Just a suggestion.

--GuillaumeTell (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right - and thank you for a careful proof reading. Every time I found a brief mention of a notable composer it opened up a whole world of premières. The principle source for this article, the Survey of London mentions that the history of the the theatre is incomplete because it's never been properly researched. I don't want to go the way of OR, but if we can drawer together references from other sources, that would actually be academically useful, as well as improve the article.

Much of the ballet text was inherited, and we had to both rein back the floridness of the language - and find references for it. My impression, from reading those sources, is that it was an important venue in the development of ballet through the romantic period. This is not to underplay its importance to opera and the general music scene over the period - I've just not got the sources for Rossini.

I'll check that phrase against the original source. Please do feel free to improve the article and thank you for your comments. Kbthompson (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope the rephrasing clarifies that it was this theatre that was know as the Italian Opera House. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. I've put in a few Rossini premieres for now. Re the above, it's a great improvement, but there's still no reference for the alleged name of "Haymarket Opera House"; if such a ref can be provided, some further clarification is needed, as the phrase "after it became the home of the Theatre Royal Drury Lane, company" is ambiguous - does it mean "from 1791 when it became their home" (but the TRDL company wasn't an opera company) or "after the new TRDL opened and the company moved out, i.e. in 1794". Sorry to keep worrying away at this, but it really doesn't read very well.

On theatre managers: According to Grove, Taylor was "a bank clerk by training" rather than a lawyer. And there is also no mention of John Ebers, who ran the theatre from 1821-1827 and wrote a book about it to boot. (Both of them deserve a WP entry, IMO.) It was Ebers who sublet the theatre to Benelli for the Rossini season, which was in 1824 not 1823. I'll sort this out tomorrow, with refs, unless you object (and I'll add in a few more UK Rossini and other premieres!). --GuillaumeTell (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Great additions, GT! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't but agree - the intention is to improve the article. Taylor is described as a 'lawyer' in the Survey, other sources may vary .... Kbthompson (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread what you said, the Guide to British Theatres 1750-1950 lists the name as the Italian Opera House, Haymarket. The Survey says Benelli took over the lease for two years at a cost of about £10k. There were a lot of managers of the theatre, we tried to include the most notable - I have no problem if you want to include Seven Years of the King's Theatre - John Ebers. Is there anything substantive in it? I'm being dumb, with this theatre, there probably is! Kbthompson (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The Monthly Review Ralph Griffiths (May 1749-Apr 1825)pp 53-65 has a rather scathing review of Mr Ebbers involvement with the theatre, and his book. Kbthompson (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry again, you were also looking for the sobriquet Haymarket Opera House; that is the title of the Survey article ... HTH Kbthompson (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's long past my bedtime (that's because the cricket is on the radio), but the Survey page that you point to says "This chapter [which is entitled 'The Haymarket Opera House', as you say] describes the theatre known at various dates as the Queen's, the King's, Her Majesty's, His Majesty's, or the Opera House." Note that that list doesn't actually include The Haymarket Opera House, so I'd interpret "The Haymarket Opera House" as a general term invented by the Survey to encompass all the names by which the Opera House was really known at various times. --GuillaumeTell (talk) 02:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

London's Lost Theatres of the Nineteenth Century Erroll Sherson pp 199 (1972, Ayer Publishing) (here and Victoriaweb refer to the house, admittedly in a colloquial sense as the Haymarket Opera House. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbthompson (talk • contribs) 10:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for digging those up, but it really does look like a colloquial name rather than an official one. Opera Grove gives only Queen's Theatre, King's Theatre and Her/His Majesty's (and Royal Italian Opera was an annual subscription series based at various different theatres, not a theatre name). --GuillaumeTell (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC) P.S. I'm having computer problems and am camping out on a friend's laptop when he's not using it, but I hope to put in a bit more opera stuff when I can - this evening, with any luck.

Carlton Hotel

I'm not currently inclined to add this to the article, but the hotel itself is notable. It was opened in 1899, by the great chef Auguste Escoffier and hotelier César Ritz, as one of their first after leaving the Savoy. The à la Carte menu was invented here, and in 1913, Ho Chi Minh trained as a pastry chef under Escoffier (Blue plaque attached to NZ House). Ritz had a nervous breakdown in 1901, leaving Escoffier to run the Carlton until 1919. Kbthompson (talk) 12:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I added a short footnote to the article with some of this info, but it sure sounds like the Carlton is interesting enough for an article. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Long Run references

I don't know what Guiness and Traubner say about long runs in the theatre, but apparently they do not cover the subject adequately. Certainly Traubner makes no attempt to be comprehensive. Salad Days surpassed the run of Chu Chin Chow in 1955. I don't know why the reviewers don't like the reference that was there. I have found it very reliable, and it is the only complete reference of its kind that I have seen. Too bad. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Who knows? You can read what I changed it too here, on page 217. I'm still trying to work out why a HQ repro of the poster on the outside of the theatre would be OK, but a reduced publicity version is not. Kbthompson (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

FA

Thanks are due to everybody who had a hand in the FA. You think you're ready after the GA - but really it's just a poor gap analysis on your part ... It was truly a collaborative effort to improve the article. Kbthompson (talk) 09:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Arising from peripheral discussions to the FA, a number of improvements were identified:

1. Lead photograph with better perspective, the current one suffers from fore-shortening
2. Second theatre section is quite long, and could do with sub-sectioning. One possible suggestion is to divide it by management, but we need to ensure that there are at least 2-3 paras in each section.
3. There is some material on the original theatre equipment (from Tree's theatre), the current Phantom stage equipment is interleaved with it. Probably worth a mention in the last section.

Please feel free to comment if on these, or if you have additional suggestions. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 12:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

On #2, I can certainly provide more info to bulk out the reigns of the various managers into 2-3 paras each. This would be from Opera Grove, which has articles on all of them and on the theatre. Also more on I masnadieri from various books on Verdi.

Sounds good. With a little more text, it will be easier to add in the manager subheadings. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

On #3, I see that Pevsner's Westminster vol notes "Exceptionally complete wooden stage machinery" (and also comments on the basement bar and other interior features).

And contrary to my edit summaries in the article history, there is a bit more to say about opera in the third theatre - at least one world première, more British premières and the residency of Sir Thomas Beecham and his BNOC, up till about 1924.

--GuillaumeTell (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, and I've never been so glad it is now tomorrow ... (see WP:Main Page).

Should we test the changes at Her Majesty's Theatre/temp, in our own user space, or just go for it? Kbthompson (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll be happy to do my thing at Her Majesty's Theatre/temp - hopefully tomorrow, but who knows? - and let y'all know when it's ready to roll. --GuillaumeTell (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I've now copied the 2nd Theatre section into the /temp space as above and put in sub-sub-headings for the various managers (query - who was the manager between 1814 and 1821?). Any comments on the headings? The Ebers and Lumley sections are the ones that need at least one more para, and I can do that (tomorrow). Incidentally, I could also fairly easily create WP stubs or articles for Taylor, Ebers and Laporte, and indeed for Giovanni Andrea Battista Gallini (aka Sir John Gallini), if that sounds like a good idea. --GuillaumeTell (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'd drop the 'manager and dates' from the header, it's clear from the text that they're manager and the dates are distracting. I think Taylor and Ebbers would naturally go in one section, as would Laporte and Lumley. I have moved Taylor down to the right place - note he didn't become manager of the second theatre until 1793, and the first two para's discuss the construction and background. That also deals with the need for a 'lead' for the section. I wouldn't just pad it to make it longer, succintness is also a virtue!

cheers Kbthompson (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[addendum], it's probably only worth creating stubs if they did anything notable independent of this theatre. Taylor was a lawyer, took over this theatre, went bust (and probably ran away to France). Ebbers, Laporte and Mapleson all had other careers, I think. Kbthompson (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Ebers, John (c.1785–1858), bookseller and opera manager —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbthompson (talk • contribs) 13:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I went through it today and think it is probably ready to go up - Guilliaume (if I may use your first name) - would you like to do the honours, since it's mostly your contributions? There is a way of doing it administratively to maintain the history, but the only time I saw that done - it lost everything - including the main article! Kbthompson (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. I've been busy on other things, but will have a glance through it tomorrow - there may be a little more that I can say in the Lumley section, but otherwise, I've finished with the second theatre. I can paste this text back in without any undue disruption, but it will only credit me with the improvements, if you don't mind that. Also, as I said above, I want to add a bit more operatic content to Phipps's theatre, but that's a separate exercise.

As for my first name, Kb (if I may call you by yours), it's actually Andrew :) --GuillaumeTell (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Andrew, I'm Kevin ... people did actually call me kb for years, I have less problem with you taking the credit than me being responsible for losing the lot! The only time I saw it done - by another admin, the lot was lost and I did somehow manage to recover the required version out of the resulting soup - but I remain unsure as to how I did that ... Kbthompson (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I've been sidetracked by this and that, but I've finally uploaded the 2nd theatre section from the /temp area, incorporating the additional singers added by Eebahgum but unlinking those who were already linked and knocking off the superfluous "and" per Ss. I think it looks OK. I'll get round to adding the Thomas Beecham and Dame Ethel Smyth operatic stuff to the 3rd theatre section in due course. --GuillaumeTell (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice work, GT! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Damn fine cherry pie. I dropped a note to User talk:Eebahgum, just to make sure s/he knew what was going on. It looks fine, good job Andrew. Kbthompson (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! --GuillaumeTell (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Images

According to WP:MoS, we're supposed to leave the images at the user default value. My default is set to 200px; these are somewhat larger and could leave the article looking deficient on a 640px screen, a laptop, or a mobile phone. That's why it's done that way, but I'll bow to superior wisdom ... Kbthompson (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I should add, I do have some images to add - when I get them out of the camera. Particularly the arcade ... I understand now why the theatre is so foreshortened - the photographer must have been lying on the pavement. There's no other shot - except with an architectural lens, I'll try to get one, but it might be difficult to borrow. Kbthompson (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yo, heads up Mr Ilvers - it's user defined! Kbthompson (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The images are now at the "thumb" default value. The "upright" signal is less than default. Most people's defalt is 180px. Before the images were showing on my screen at about 140px which is very narrow . I think they must now be showing on your screen at 200px. But I would not put in the "upright" signal. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. The default value defines the width of the image. The upright tag is supposed to adjust the width of the image to acknowledge that it it is taller than it is wide. Kbthompson (talk) 08:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to belabor the point, but the "upright" tag changes the aspect ratio to make the image artificially narrow - in fact, narrower than your usual default, because it changes the width, but not the length. Your default setting for "thumb" works correctly only if you do *not* use the "upright" tag. The "upright" tag distorts the image, makes the caption unnecessarily long and generally makes the image hard to see. I can hardly think of an instance in which I would not remove the "upright" tag. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not getting at you - much - and a few deviations aren't going to hurt. In fact will improve the page layout. Just ensuring we don't go on a non-MoS jag! Kbthompson (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There are far to many images in this article - the layout is tasteless and cluttered. It looks like total CRAP. Mrlopez2681 (talk) 06:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Generally, a little more helpful to make suggestions on improvements, by way of constructive criticism. Kbthompson (talk) 08:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)