Talk:Creatures of Impulse

Creatures of Impulse is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 25, 2008.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 22, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
May 24, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
June 13, 2008	Featured article candidate	Promoted
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 18, 2008. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the New York Times wrote that W. S. Gilbert's play Creatures of Impulse was a "burletta of the stamp that was in vogue a hundred years ago, resembling Midas"?
Current status: Featured article

Gilbert and Sullivan Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gilbert and Sullivan 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.Gilbert and SullivanWikipedia:WikiProject Gilbert and SullivanTemplate:WikiProject Gilbert and SullivanGilbert and Sullivan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Theatre Low‑importance

	Theatre portal This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Nom

I would suggest that you withdraw the GA nom and get a peer review first. I don't think that this article is anything like GA-ready. However, I would nominate it at DYK. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, your view of GA always was closer to FA. It's actually quite a bit lower than that. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the criticism - probably would want to add more for FA, but three reviews is probably decent for GA. I also got a few people to review it, and incorporated their suggestions. User:Awadewit should come in for special praise in this respect: She helped with the copyediting, and did a big chunk of the research for the reviews, using a service her University has access to. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict

Sorry, I didn't realize you're still working. I'll sign off now and take a look tomorrow. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this was my fault: I didn't realise YOU were still working, saw you had edited, and made a tweak. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To review or not to review

Hello, I was considering reviewing this article for GAC, but I noticed that there has been quite a lot of activity over the past few days. Is this article ready for a review at this time? If not, I suggest withdrawing the nomination per Ssilver's comments above and waiting until the progress has come to a resting point. It would be difficult to review while substantial work is still being completed. After a cursory read, I do see that the article needs additional work on the references (page numbers are missing, formatting is inconsistent, some claims are unverified, etc) and areas of the prose seem rushed. I doubt any reviewer would easily pass this article, so you may want to rethink the timing IMO. María (habla conmigo) 15:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added page numbers, except for The Graphic's review, because the database used to access that just gives the issue. I'm not sure which claims you think are unreferenced, though, outside of the lead (which is a summary, after all) I think it's fairly well-referenced. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Maria. I think the article has come to rest now. In addition, Shoemaker has addressed all the content and editorial points that I raised. Neither I nor Shoemaker have more to add to it at this time. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

The GA review has been archived and moved here. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

footnote formatting - separator line

I removed the line above the superscripted internal footnotes in the summary and characters sections and italicized them instead. I think they look confusing, as if a new section were starting, and I just don't like the way they look. It seems to me that italics adequately sets them apart from the section that they footnote, and that the line separation makes it hard for the reader to understand what is going on. Can you either take out the lines or come up with another solution? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image

As for that The Graphic image - You know, I really do suspect they repurposed an illustration from the short story. It fits the Sergeant's reaction to Jenny in the short story much better than the corresponding events in the play. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyeditor's notes

I've finished a top-to-bottom copyedit of this interesting article. I didn't want to be too heavy-handed and give in to my impulse to revise the reference system, but I don't think the quadruple system works well or conforms to the usual Wikipedia style. I'd suggest incorporating the six extra notes marked with superscript numbers into the larger set of notes appearing in the Notes section. One fairly easy way to do this would be to use <ref> ... </ref>, inserting, for example, "In the play, only her niece (and a few servants) live with her, and Peter instead becomes a farmer. This has no effect on the plot." between the ref tags. A further complication arises with the second note, "Jenny's love for the sergeant has very little role to play in the story, and no direct reference occurs in the play." This note is itself footnoted twice. To eliminate the awkwardness of notated notes, simply include an internal note or notes at the end of the new main footnote inside the ref tags: "See Gilbert (1890), pp. 161-73 and Gilbert (1911), pp. 309-27." Please ask if what I'm saying doesn't make sense. I'll be happy to come back and take another look later, if you like, or help make the switch from four sets of notes to one unified set. Finetooth (talk) 03:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breeches role

I just noticed in the original cast that Peter was played by a "Maggie", presumably a woman. Is it worth noting that the role was played as a breeches role? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. There's (very brief) discussion on Stedman, p. 88. First sentence of the third paragraph. That said, this... really wasn't uncommon in the Victorian era. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added something under the character table. Is it useful to say here that in the G&S operas, the triumvirate banned this practice? If so, do you have a cite? I imagine we say it somewhere else, but I forget where. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it's in Rees. Do you have him? aActually, I'm really rather shocked to see that we don't discuss the changes between Thespis and later G&S operas in the article on Thespis. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We do to some extent: We say that Thespis is more like a burlesque and explain what a burlesque is. To then discuss in detail what English comic opera became later seems outside the scope of Thespis and is best left to the Gilbert and Sullivan article. If you want to talk more about this, let's do so either on your talk page or by e-mail. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Short story - No, play

I wondre how this article could get the FA status if containing the macroscopic error of wrong formatting of short story title, instead of "short story title" (see WP:Manual of Style). --Attilios (talk) 09:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had just noticed the same thing. Any objections to changing it to the MoS-approved style? the skomorokh 02:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article is mostly about the play. The play is based on the short story. So the style of the name of the article is correct for a play article. I made a change the Lead section that I think clarifies this, OK? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That clarifies matters, thank you. the skomorokh 04:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Creatures of Impulse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930201240/http://web.ukonline.co.uk/ajcrowth/wsglife.htm to http://web.ukonline.co.uk/ajcrowth/wsglife.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Creatures of Impulse. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 07:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]