[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Rutland Barrington

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleRutland Barrington has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 10, 2008Good article nomineeListed

Gags

[edit]

As I recall, Barrington was responsible for a number of the gags and one-liners that, though not in the first night librettos, were generally approved by Gilbert, and made their way into the libretto. An example, as I recall, was Pooh-Bah's line after told that he and the coconspirators are to be executed after luncheon, "I don't want any luncheon." Perhaps some mention could be made. I'm not positive, but I think his interjections were the subject of the famous exchange between (I think) D'Oyly Carte and Queen Victoria, who asked about the lines not found in the libretto (which she had been following) and she was told they were gags. "Gags? I thought those were things put in peoples' mouths by authority?" "No, ma'am, these are things put by people in their own mouths without authority." --Wehwalt (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits. Are you certain about The Pickwick Papers? As far as gags, Barrington was not alone. Others' gags found their way into the libretti, and in fact Gilbert often made changes at an actor's request. I suppose it could be proved that a number of Barrington's gags in the Mikado still survive in the libretto, but you'd need to find the references. Clearly Barrington and Grossmith were both practical jokers, and in his 1908 memoir, Barrington recounts how he and Grossmith would torture D'Oyly Carte, but I couldn't really find a place for it in the article. Anything that you can put in with good references is fair game if you think it adds to the spirit of the section in question. Note that I took out the references to "death date". I don't think that's what the MOS says to do, and I think it's clear that we don't know it, or we'd have put it in. The problem is that we have access to UK census records up to 1901, but after that they are not public domain in the UK, and both the brothers lived into the 20th century. There must be some way for a UK librarian to get the info, but I don't know how to do it. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about Pickwick, I just assumed. I have read that Barrington was the source of many of the gags, but I will have to look through the references when I get a chance. I did see you reverted on the death date thing, it now reads sort of oddly, as if they were still living. Perhaps we could put something like "his brother, younger by x years" or some such. But what does the MOS say to do if you don't know the death date?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]

I had such a great time reading this article despite the fact that I knew nothing about Barrington beforehand. It fulfills a majority of the Good Article criteria (it is comprehensive, fantastically illustrated, stable, neutral, and well referenced), but it needs a little work on the prose several formatting/MOS styles. Some suggestions and comments:

  • All of the online sources do not include necessary information, including but not limited to publisher, access date, author, etc. Citation templates may be useful as a guide, but they're not necessary. The same goes for the two linked sources in the "References" section.
    • Done.
  • A few of the sources in "References" have a separate external link saying "available online here", which is unnecessary; just link the title of work.
    • Done.
  • I don't believe the captions should begin in the middle of the sentence with a lowercase: "as..." I understand the desire not to be repetitive and state "Barrington as this person" and "Barrington as that person" again and again, but some other kind of variation would be less jarring than only listing the character and the work. Can more information be given, such as a timeframe? It's okay to repeat what is in the text or, better yet, squeeze in a quote or random factoid that isn't included in the prose, making a complete sentence for a caption. Just some suggestions.
    • Done. See what you think. WP:MOS says to keep captions short and put all the info in the text, not the caption.
      • MOS is overrated. :) Actually, I quite like what you've done. If captions are full sentences, however, they require periods.
  • for the lyric baritone roles in the Gilbert and Sullivan operas: this seems somewhat awkward to me because the "the" is vague. Should it be "singing the" or "playing the"? I'm not sure what the jargon would be.
    • Done. Playing is fine, but he created these roles - but I don't want to say "created" twice in the LEAD.... hmmm.
      • Good point. If you think of a synonym that holds the same weight as "created", by all means add it!
        • Done. Came up with "originated"  :)
  • The first paragraph of the lead could perhaps be rephrased. How about this:
  • Rutland Barrington (January 15, 1853 – May 31, 1922) was an English singer, actor, comedian, and Edwardian musical comedy star. Best remembered for [] the lyric baritone roles in the Gilbert and Sullivan operas, his performing career spanned more than four decades. He also wrote at least a dozen works for the stage.
    • Done.
  • After leaving Daly's he continued in musical comedy roles and in his own music hall performances, as well as in some Shakespeare and other dramatic roles, and a few silent films. This is rather lengthy and jumbled. Perhaps split it into two separate sentences and clarify "his own music hall performances". A little detail wouldn't hurt, either; how successful was his turn to dramatic roles? What about films?
    • I broke the sentence into two pieces as you suggested. Compared to the D'Oyly Carte opera company career of 20 years and the Edwardian musical comedy career at Daly's and then for several more years afterwards, the other aspects of of his career, such as music hall, are unimportant. I think it would be misleading to give them more weight than they deserve in the article. As for the music hall performing, not much is known. None of his music hall songs or sketches are remembered today, and they formed a relatively minor part of his career.
      • I agree, these are very minor points, and after reading the rest of the article I definitely picked up on it. I read and commented on the lead first, however, because that's what the average reader will do and not go any further. It makes sense to qualify his minor forays into other mediums so as not to given the mistaken impression that Shakespeare and film work are a big deal; to me, the outsider, it sounded impressive! You could even add in "minor and less known" film work and that none of his music hall performances are remembered or noteworthy today, just so that people won't get the wrong idea.
        • I fiddled with it a little, and I think that now it gives the right nuance to what's important and what's less important, and I think that adding in more qualifiers would only draw more attention to the minor items. What do you think?
          • Much, much better.
  • Barrington was employed in a bank for eighteen months as a young man, but had no enthusiasm for such work, although he had ambitions to be an actor. The "although" makes no sense here; remove and replace with a semicolon.
    • Done.
  • His aunt, activist Emily Faithfull, introduced him to the theatre: chronologically, did this happen before or after the bank job and his wish to become an actor and his father's disapproval? It seems odd that it would come after.
    • Yes, it was afterwards: After he came of age, his aunt introduced him to people in the theatre business.
      • Okay, but she didn't introduce him to the theatre itself? Just connections?
        • I'm not sure what you mean. Barrington says in his book: "Through the kind offices of my dearly loved aunt, Emily Faithfull, I obtained an opening at the Olympic Theatre" (p. 15). Then he says: "I was first introduced to [the leading actor of the day, Henry Irving] at a soiree given by Emily Faithfull..." (p. 19) Then he says: "E. L. Blanchard... was very kind to me when I first went on the stage (this was yet another introduction which I owed to Emily Faithfull)" (p. 225)
          • Okay, I think I get the gist. When I read introduced him to the theatre, I had the impression that she was the one who introduced the idea of theatre to him (such as taking him to his first play or something), therefore leading to his ambition to become an actor. But, really, she got him his first job and helped him make his first connections, am I right? Can this be made more clear? It's not a make or break deal, but it would be helpful.
            • OK, I clarified the sentence.
  • (1851 – 1918): no spaces
    • Done.
  • but Gilbert, who required that his actors to play their sometimes-absurd lines in all earnestness: remove "to"
    • Done. Oops!
  • Richard D'Oyly Carte is linked twice in the "Early career" section; remove the second link
    • Done, although I think that a repeated link is permitted where it has been several paragraphs since it was last seen and it is a very important link?
      • I think you removed the first link, but kept the second; it should be the other way around -- Carte should be linked the first time he's mentioned. They're only two paragraphs separated and it's not necessary to link the same name in the same section, although I do agree it's an important link!
        • It turned out that he had been linked three times originally. Now he's only linked in the LEAD. Should he be linked again at the next mention?
          • Yup.
  • In his 1908 autobiography, Rutland repeats... I was wondering who "Rutland" was, and then I realized it's Barrington...!

No first name usage, big no-no. Also, since the 1908 autobiography is in the past, it should be referred to in the past tense. That goes for "goes on to say" and "says", as well.

    • Done. Good catch!
  • The ellipses do not follow WP:ELLIPSIS
    • It seems to me that they do, but I must be missing something. Can you point to the problem?
      • One quote has four dots: "This pleased me so much that I have never sung flat since, except, of course, when I wished....", and I could have sworn there was something else, but it's completely left me. If I think of it, I'll fix it.
        • Is it OK now? At the end of a sentence, there should be four dots - the three for the ellipsis, and one for the period at the end of the sentence. I looked at all the ellipses in the article just now, and they all seem right to me now.
          • Good point, I'd missed that. Nix that, then.
  • I have a tendency to overuse commas, so it's easy for me to spot them. Some examples:
  • Also around this time, Barrington's short play with Cunningham Bridgeman, composed by Wilfred Bendall, called Quid Pro Quo, was first produced: perhaps change to: "Also around this time, Barrington's short play entitled Quid Pro Quo, which was written with Cunningham Bridgeman and composed by Wilfred Bendall, was first produced."
    • Done.
  • in which he cast the large, ungainly actor, Corney Grain, in a similar role: since actor is assumed, how about "he cast the large, ungainly Corney Grain in a similar role"?
    • Done.
  • This role was Barrington's least favourite of the series, and he attributed Ida's relatively short run, at least in part, to the lack of prominence of this role in the opera: "partly attributed"?
    • :( I think it's more elegant as is. If you insist, I'll change it, but I'd rather not.
      • Nah, I'll give you one out of four. :)
        • Muahahahahaha! Part of my evil plan!
  • a comedy called Bartonmere Towers, written by Barrington, was first presented at a matinee: "written by Barrington and called..."?
    • Done.
  • Dr. Daly or Dr Daly? Consistency is needed.
    • Done. (Went with the UK style of Dr Daly)
  • Gilbert forgave Barrington for the outburst, and even discontinued the invitations, but during later rehearsals, if anyone sat in the stalls awaiting their cue, Gilbert would expostulate, "You mustn't sit here; Barrington won't like it." Very stop-and-go reading what with the commas. "Gilbert forgave Barrington for the outburst and even discontinued the invitations. In fact, if anyone sat in the stalls during later rehearsals, Gilbert would expostulate..." etc?
    • Done.
  • After The Gondoliers closed in 1891, Gilbert and Sullivan were estranged for a time, and, after appearing in a few more roles, including as Robert Plushly in his own piece, A Swarry Dansong, a duologue with music by Solomon, Barrington returned to the Savoy to star as Punka, the Rajah of Chutneypore, in Dance, Desprez, and Solomon's The Nautch Girl. That's a crazy sentence. Could it be split up into several to help readability?
    • Done.
  • the stage was dominated by a heroic-size statue of him in the role[33] (1894–95).[9] The date coming so long after the name of the work is odd.
    • Done.
  • In his 1908 memoir, Barrington writes: a majority of the quotes have been introduced in the past tense, so I suggest, again, making these changes so that consistency can be kept.
    • Done.
  • performing standard topical songs of the day, including the only song that he recorded, "The Moody Mariner," in 1905: the "in 1905" tacked onto the end is confusing. "1905's 'The Moody Mariner'"?
    • Done. Put in parens instead of using a possessive.
      • Great job.
  • Other such sketches and songs included "Man the Lifeboat", written by Leedham Bantock,[39] "Across the Silent Way" and "The Tramp" by Barrington and Slaughter, Mummydom, which he wrote with Wilfrid Bendall (Sullivan's former secretary) based on his play of the same name that had been produced some years earlier at Penley's Theatre. This is confusing. is Mummydom in addition to "Man the Lifeboat", "Across the Silent Way" and "The Tramp"? If so, there's a missing "and".
    • Done.

Again, this article is a great overview and I'd love to pass it after some of the formatting and prose issues have been resolved. For now, however, I'm going to put it on hold to give the contributors some time. If there are any questions or comments about this review, please do contact me on my talk page. Just let me know when you're ready for me to take another look! Thanks. María (habla conmigo) 02:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! I made a couple minor edits, I hope you don't mind -- I closed a half-done italics tag and removed the accessed dates from the External links; because the ELs are not used as references, they don't need dates attached. I also added the URLs directly to the book citation templates in the References. You've done a very nice job, so I'll go ahead and pass this for GA. Congrats! María (habla conmigo) 12:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your excellent comments! -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I'll get to Grossmith later on today, hopefully. María (habla conmigo) 13:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Version 0.7

[edit]

This is a nice article, but I just don't think there's room in Version 0.7 for this one. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 04:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced addition

[edit]

Hi. I removed this new addition: John Faithfull Fleet, C.I.E(1847-1917) another of the brothers was an Indian Civil Service officer with the erstwhile Her Majesties Indian Civil Service and also an eminent Indologist, Epigraphist and Linguist because no reference was given. Wikipedia depends on bibliographic citations to WP:Reliable sources. See also WP:V. Where did you get this information? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i, sorry for the unreferenced addition. at the time of adding the page for J.F.Fleet was under construction ,so in my excitement on finding link between my topic and Rutland Barrington i added it in a jiffy. Was to add reference later. Anyways you can take a look at John Faithfull Fleet. I've used some of your references too, but i suppose you'll get your answers there. cheers. -- Tej smiles (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Fleet and Barrington do seem to be brothers, since their parents have the same names, but I do not see a source that specifically says so. Have you seen such a source? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]

Please do not add an infobox to this article. The use of infoboxes in WP articles is optional. The Manual of Style says: "Whether to include an infobox ... and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." See also WP:DISINFOBOX. While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles, as here, do not. Here are some reasons why I disagree with including an infobox in this article: (1) The box emphasizes unimportant factoids, and all the facts it presents are stripped of context and lacking nuance, whereas the WP:LEAD section emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) The most important points about the article are discussed in the Lead, so the box is redundant. (3) It takes up valuable space at the top of the article and hampers the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw more vandalism and fancruft than other parts of articles. (5) The infobox template creates a lot of code near the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It discourages readers from reading the article. (7) It distracts editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. (8) I am particularly familiar with the Gilbert and Sullivan-related articles on Wikipedia, and throughout the articles within the scope of WikiProject G&S, the consensus has been not to have infoboxes, so adding an infobox would degrade the consistency of design throughout these articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above is a very good summary. I-Bs are very useful to the reader for many articles where life statistics can be summarised (sportspeople etc), but add nothing useful and are mere clutter here, making Wikipedia look clumsy and amateurish to the visitor. Tim riley talk 20:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said on previous occasions, I cannot see that infoboxes serve any useful purpose, especially when all the relevant information is already included in the lead, as in this article. In addition, we have a policy on the G&S Project not to include optional infoboxes in the articles. Jack1956 (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rutland Barrington. 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) 16:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rutland Barrington. 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) 02:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rutland_Barrington&oldid=1205764716"