Talk:Trial by Jury/GA1

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.

• Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• 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.

• Shoe?? -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• 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)