Talk:Creatures of Impulse/GA1

GA Review

Okay, then I'll go ahead and review:

• The lead section does not adhere to WP:LEAD in that it isn't a summary of the entire article. The songs are not mentioned, nor is the fact that the lyrics survive but the music is lost. There's a section on characters and the original cast, but that's also not included in the lead. It needs some plumping.
  • Done.
    • Now that the "History" section has been greatly added to, the lead needs to incorporate some of that info, as well. Also, I just noticed that Alberto Randegger is mentioned in the lead but nowhere else. His part needs to be explained in the body somewhere.
      • Randegger is described a bit now in History. I think it seems sufficient now, considering the relative importance of the music to this work. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Per WP:DASH, en and em dashes are used incorrectly throughout. Remember, spaced en dashes or unspaced em dashes. Regular dashes within prose is right out.
  • Done. – = ndash.
• The short story was first published... wait, who wrote it? When? At what point in his career? Why? What influenced it (if anything)?
  • Done -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I think what is missing now is a short intro to this Gilbert fellow: "written by English dramatist and etc, etc, W. S. Gilbert" in the lead and something similar at the beginning of the "History" section? Don't assume that we all know who this guy is or why he's so important. :)

OK now? Shoemaker, the absurdist premise of the story and its fairy/enchantment device fits in well with the contemporaneous Gilbert plays like Topsyturveydom and The Palace of Truth, and even though it is a lesser work, the description of Gilbert's playwritng development is relevant. Of course, if you have references concerning the development of Gilbert's short-story writing at this point in his career, by all means add something. Maria, I suspect that there is not much to say about Gilbert's short story writing, since Gilbert's playwriting was much more important to his career, and has drawn far more criticism and analysis, than his short story writing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should put it in context, but, well, that felt a little cut-and-paste from Gilbert's biography. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. In fact, I had to go back to the sources to put it together so that it was focused on this part of Gilbert's career, and in particular the years 1870 and 1871. But your subsequent edits have improved it further. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I know it's not really, just that we tend to have to discuss the same things over and over in these 1870s works, so it gets a bit samey after a while, particularly if the description is too "generic", and not focused on the play at hand. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it OK now? See comment on my talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• The chronology of the first paragraph is confusing: twenty years after it was first published as a short story in a magazine, it was included in a collection of his stories. So we have 1870, 1890, and then we switch back to 1871. Foggerty's Fairy and Other Tales be mentioned later on in the section.
  • I wanted to deal with the short story's history, instead of coming back to it after three pages on the play, which has a much more complicated history. I'll poke at it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• ...a few months later, it was on stage: because of who? Was this Gilbert's idea? Who directed it?
  • Fixed! a couple additional paragraphs put it in context.
• An acting edition was published by Samuel French: when?
  • Until about 1971. None of the sources give the start date, but it's likely to have been within a few years of the premiere. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Is there any information about the short story's reception/literary legacy? Most of what is in the "History" section deals with the play, which is fine if that's all there is available, but I'm curious what people thought of the story itself rather than the production.
  • Well - this can't go into the article, because this is kinda OR, but - Foggerty's Fairy and Other Tales, the collection it appears in, was pulled from publication over a copyright dispute with only a few copies surviving. There have been a few attempts at publishing collections since, but they never became prominent enough to gain much literary criticism or historical influence. In other words, yes, that's everything =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree: there's not likely to be much more about the story's contemporary literary reception, and Gilbert's short stories have been lightly skipped over by biographers, so if Shoemaker did not see it in his research for this article, it probably just doesn't exist. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• "a very pretty girl, but so absurdly shy that her prettiness went for nothing." needs citation, I'm guessing from the story itself. This is where a specific page number would come in handy.
  • Good work, Shoemaker, but you still need to footnote the other quote, that begins "this show of affection...." a couple paragraphs down. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Done. I'm sure that giving the exact page number in a ten page story will prove very convenient to people once they spend five months tracking down this extremely rare book. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• The plot should be told in present tense as per WP:WAF. This in particular is confusing: "This shyness had encouraged Peter, who is extremely cowardly, to fall in love with her, but when he told her, she overcame her shyness long enough to box his ears, and nothing came of it."
  • That's the backstory - it's said to have happened before the story starts, not as part of the story, so, you know... Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I made some edits that I think clarify this? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• There's an overuse of "has", "had" and colons in the plot summary. If a colon must be used, the following word should not be capitalized.
  • It does get capitalised if it starts a complete sentence. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I think we have now reduced the numbers of incidents of "has" and "had" to a reasonable number, eh? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• In "Characters and original cast", the first word in each section should be capitalized.
  • Done.
• "Ditto" is surely not the best word to use for an encyclopedic article; Same? As mentioned?
  • Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• The Times' review of the play wrote that it was "overweighted with a quantity of extremely undramatic music", and the version printed in Original Plays cut these six songs to three. These are two separate facts that need further elaboration. When did the Times review this production? When was the version printed in Original Plays? Did the compiler of the latter cut the songs because of similar negative reactions? Did others agree with the Times?
  • There aren't sources for when the cuts happened, but that's the Times' review of the première. I expect they were cut either during the original run or for the first revival, which was, after all, described as "shortened", but there just isn't enough evidence to give an exact timescale. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Reviews for the play were generally favourable, but it was criticised for its loose structure and lack of any substantial plot: needs a ref. I'm also concerned that this one sentence stands on its own; one sentence does not make a paragraph. Again, what about the reception of the story?
  • Added explicit refs. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• I still have issues with the references:
  • Ref 8 contains three separate sources; these should be divided into three separate references. Same with ref 9.
    • Done.
  • Per WP:CITE, page numbers should be as specific as possible. "pp. 309-321" or "161-174" is not specific enough in order to be verifiable. I suggest putting both of the Gilbert works into the "Further reading" (lowercase) section and referring to them as you did the Stedman work. In fact, why aren't all of the book sources treated this way?
    • Done. There's a couple general refs left, but they do refer to the thing as a whole. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Is the "Further reading" section a bibliography or not? Stedman is used as a reference, but "James, M.E. What shall we act?, p. 30 (1882) G. Bell" is not; will it be? It should be one or the other.
    • Done, except that James is not cited in the text. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • In refs 3 and 9 I see word counts. Not necessary.
    • Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • In order to create consistency, I suggest using citation templates. The differing formats are confusing, dates need to be written and linked consistently, refs 5 and 7 seem to be missing publisher information, etc.
    • I think the ref formatting is OK now, except maybe to the books. I'd rather not add all the template stuff unless you really think it's necessary. Let me know if you have any other consistency suggestions here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Victorian newspapers, with their uncredited authors and unusual headlining, just don't fit into citation templates. However, I've done all the references that fit, and standardised the rest. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Adding the templates has caused a number of problems, including that the retrieval information appears twice in each footnote. Please take another look. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Got it. Stupid templates. Next time, I'm doing it sans =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

An interesting article, but it needs some work. I'm not sure if it's broad enough in its coverage yet, and I do highly recommend that more information be found regarding the story and its conception and reception rather than the play adaptation. I'll put the GAC on hold pending further improvement. Let me know if you have any questions or comments. Good luck! María (habla conmigo) 17:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Gilbert's short stories are pretty much ignored by scholarship (at the moment, anyway), and pretty much all that can be said about them without original research is in the article. Basically, Gilbert suffers from having such a major collaboration with Sullivan that it overshadows most of his other work, and while his plays and poetry are still discussed and performed, when he tried to publish collections of his short stories he hit a copyright problem, and most copies were destroyed, so they never really entered the public sphere enough to get much comment. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Take two

Wow, the article has improved vastly since yesterday. Awesome job! The additional info in the "History" section is particularly of use. As for my thoughts regarding reception/legacy of the story, if the material doesn't exist, it doesn't exist. The context has been made clear, which is enough for me. A few formatting nitpicks remain, but other than these I feel the article has now safely reached GA-class:

• The ;commands in the History section need to be converted to level three section headers.
  • I prefer the ;commands for these short subsections to keep the TOC to a reasonable length. Is there a WP policy against it? -- Ssilvers (talk)
    • I don't think there's policy against it, but a few subsections won't considerably bloat the TOC. If it's a shared concern, however, you could always suppress the amount of items listed by using the {{TOClimit|limit=n}} command (explained at WP:TOC). I prefer the subsections since they allow easier editing within a section, but that's just me and my lazy preference. María (habla conmigo) 14:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Something wrong with ref 8; missing bracket?
  • Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Full dates, even in the references, need to be wikilinked. Also, is the preference for British (22 May 2008) or American (May 22, 2008) style? (Note that for British style there is no comma.) Per WP:DATE: "The same format should be used in the main text, footnotes and references of each article".
  • We're supposed to be using Brit style, but I don't know how to get rid of the comma. Do you? Shoemaker, can you please add the date links in the stupid templates? Other than that, I think I Fixed all the dates for consistencey. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Some dashes in the refs need to be converted to en-dashes as per ref 14.
  • Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Formatting is inconsistent in the "References" section; comma, period, or nothing after year? Period at the end or no?
  • Fixed, I think? Unfortunately the stupid templates force a period after the retrieval date, so I added periods to the two that are not in a template. But I don't like periods at the end of footnotes and wish the templates didn't do this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Very minor stuff, don't sweat it; I trust you guys will take care of it in your own time. Aside from the above, everything else is good; the prose reads well, the images are quite good (a trend with G&S articles, I see), so I'll go ahead and pass it for GAC. Again, great (and quick) work, guys, I'm impressed with your collaboration. María (habla conmigo) 13:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, again, Maria. You really helped us whip this into shape! -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)