Wikipedia:Featured article review/His Majesty's Theatre, London/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 0:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [1].

His Majesty's Theatre, London[edit]

Notified: [2], May 2023

I am nominating this featured article for review because of several issues raised on talk by SandyGeorgia and other editors, including "unreliable sources, ... image layout issues, ... appears hardly updated or watched", MOS:LEAD issues, and failed verification (t · c) buidhe 04:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article was taken to FA in 2008 by that fine editor the late Kevin Thompson. He died in 2010, which I think explains why the page has been "hardly updated or watched". I'll have a good look at it and see what I can do. From a first canter through I see nothing of concern so far as accuracy is concerned (though one can't predict what a close scrutiny will throw up). The citation and referencing most definitely need work, and there are some attributions to sources I am unconvinced by.
Detailed preliminary comments:
  • From a first read-through I see numerous books cited without page numbers. I can probably fix those (the British Library is not far away). For any I can't fix I can look for alternative reliable sources to cite.
  • Books are sometimes cited – with or without adequate bibliographical detail – in the Notes section and sometimes in the References section. I can fix all these. I'll put all the books and bibliographical info together in the References section.
  • The lead has been messed up by recent additions that ought to be in the main text with citations (with possibly a brief uncited mention in the lead). I can fix these.
  • As to reliability of sources, I see several to a website I should not personally wish to rely on, The Guide to Musical Theatre, but I can replace those with citations from Gänzl and Lamb's authoritative work, which I have to hand, or failing that from The Times.
  • There are a couple of citations to the Arthur Lloyd site. I don't know if it has been formally recognised as a WP:RS but I have never caught it napping, and I can't recall seeing any conflict between it and Mander and Mitchenson, for example. I'll let those stand unless anyone objects.
  • There are some press citations without page numbers: at first glance I think I can fix all of these.
I'll know more once I have started a line-by-line check on accuracy and verification. I can see that taking at least a week. Report follows. Tim riley talk 08:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My one comment on a quick scan is one of the last lines of the article, and that is I believe Really Useful Theatres has rebranded to LW Theatres. Good luck with the FA Nom Mark E (talk) 08:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tim riley, thanks for taking this on. No hurry at FAR, but please provide weekly updates on progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, my apologies for appearing careless in missing the death of Kevin Thompson-- a problem with using WP:MMS for notifications is that you don't go to user talk personally :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has been a labour of love working on the article in Kevin's absence. He was a helpful WP colleague and a delightful man in real life. I fondly recall trips to London pubs and to Chatsworth House with him and his wife. Every time I have made a change to his text here I have asked myself 'What would Kevin have thought?', but how often I got it right I cannot guess. Tim riley talk 10:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to the MOS:SANDWICHing and images placed at bottoms of sections (MOS:ACCESS), in this section, see MOS:IMAGELOC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • SandyGeorgia, I have finished a first pass through the text, removing uncited/unverifiable material and adding material where I thought it necessary. I have not previously done an overhaul in pursuance of a featured article review, and I should be grateful for your thoughts (and those of any other editors, naturally) on the text as it now stands. Have I replaced so much that the FA status approved in 2008 can still stand? Are the citations now all right? Are the images OK now? Tim riley talk 10:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Image layout looks good.
      A google search (and the Poke article itself) reveals it should be easy to replace the IMDb reference.
      Buidhe are you satisfied with the lead now?
      Will continue reading as I have time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing and citation queries:

  • IMDb can be replaced (higher quality sources are available).
  • I am unfamiliar with http://www.overthefootlights.co.uk/ ... is it high quality/reliable?
    "Over the Footlights" is an online UK theatre and music hall history encyclopedia created by Vivyan Ellacott, an opera and theatre manager and director, who has been researching London theatres for many years. He started his career with BBC TV in Cardiff and soon worked in stage management at the Royal Opera House before moving into management as a staff producer with the Welsh National Opera and then as manager of the Swansea Grand theatre. He was General Manager and Artistic Director of the Kenneth More Theatre in Ilford for 35 years. He served for 8 years on the Theatres Advisory Council, 12 years as Chairman of the Commercial Theatre Managers Association of Great Britain, and 30 years as Trustee of the UK Theatre Council. He wrote a book called "London Theatres from the Ealiest Times to Date". The website uses such sources as Mander and Mitchenson, W. Macqueen Pope, Errol Sherson and Diana Howard, as well as research at London libraries and at theatre institutions like the Theatres Trust. In my experience, when he finds sources questionable, or evidence thin, he usually says so.
    I've replaced it with a book source (Mander and Mitchenson). Tim riley talk 17:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It sounds like he meets WP:SPS then; maybe you could keep both sources, for accessibility? Whatever you think best. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • On citation consistency, I see one journal article (Smith) listed in Sources and using short notes, while some other journal articles use ref tags (eg https://www.jstor.org/stable/3359110); what is the style used?
    My normal practice, as here, is to put refs to a short or single-page journal article in the citations and to put in the sources section multi-page articles of which I refer to various pages (treating them like books in effect) in the citations. This seems to me to give readers the quickest route into the sources, but I am quite happy to alter it here if wanted. Tim riley talk 17:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine (I often do same); just asking for clarification. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these steers. Any more will be gladly received. I am still uncertain whether my fairly extensive changes to Kevin's text invalidate the 2008 FAC review, and would be grateful for advice on that point. Tim riley talk 17:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tim riley I'm unsure what the concern is or where the notion that an FA must stay as it passed FAC comes from. FAR reviews existing FAs to the same standards as FAC reviews non-existing FAs. Most articles change over time. In no way does updating, improving or changing an FA mean it cannot be determined to meet FA standards via FAR, just as it can via FAC. Perhaps a re-read of the instructions and description at WP:FAR will help? Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding the question. At any point, if a reviewer believes this article does not meet WP:WIAFA, then they can declare "Move to FARC", where !voting can proceed. Else, others can declare in this stage "Close without FARC", if they believe standards are met. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you – that's most reassuring. It was just that I had added and removed so much of the original FA text. (A friend of mine was for some time responsible for the Cutty Sark at Greenwich, and he told me there were none of the original timbers left in place: all had been renewed one by one over the decades: so is it the same ship? And is this the same FA article?) Happy to leave it to you and other reviewers now to decide if the FA status is still appropriate. Tim riley talk 19:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tim riley as an informed editor, your opinion matters, and you can enter a declaration. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel I have had a friendly hand guiding me through an unfamiliar process, and I thank you most warmly. Tim riley talk 19:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More queries:

  • The Background section near the top ends with this sentence: "These three post-interregnum theatres defined the shape and use of modern theatres." Is it just saying that later theatres were generally modelled on them in terms of the shape and use (meaning proscenium stage, auditorium with seats facing the front?), or does it mean something that I am not understanding about "modern" theatres and the time period being defined? Also, would you please confirm my understanding that it means that the two patent theatres were the only two theatres in London prior to 1705? -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As regards the first part of your question, I take the phrase to mean the former. There had been roofed theatres in the early Stuart period before the miserable Commonwealth closed them down, but the Restoration houses were recognisably on the same model as some still operating today, notably Covent Garden. As to the latter, no: it would be more precise to refer to the patent companies rather than to the patent theatres - the King's Company and the Duke's Company - although each was based at only one theatre at a time, and so the term "patent theatre" is not inaccurate. There were other theatres, not licensed to present straight plays.
The sentence (and indeed paragraph) is very confusing. If there were other theatres that, like Queens, were not licensed, why was Queens the first alternative to the licensed theatres? And how did its "use" differ from those other, or earlier, theatres? Can you please re-examine that paragraph? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted para. Tim riley talk 18:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the next section, the article says: "Later in the season Vanbrugh presented a comedy, The Confederacy". Was a non-patent theatre allowed to present a comedy without music? If so, we should clarify this in the Lead and the previous section, where we say that only the patent theatres could perform plays, and also clarify what we mean by "drama", "plays" (including comedies) and plays with or without music -- was incidental music enough to permit a play to be presented? Near the end of the section we use the term "serious drama". The patent theatre article does not clear this up at all. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The original plan after the Restoration in 1660 was that the two patent companies were to be the only ones allowed to stage drama, but in the words of one historian, this rule was "frequently challenged and altered". Managers of the two patent companies did not need a licence, but other managers could seek one, and "By the 1720s the rules about who could legally offer plays had become fuzzy and their enforcement lax ... While spoken drama was technically limited to the patent houses, other venues began to stretch the boundaries." This is from Kinservik, Matthew (2003). "patent theatres", Oxford Encyclopedia of Theatre and Performance, Oxford University Press, 2005, and by all means add from it to the text or as a footnote if you think it clarifies something that needs clarifying. Tim riley talk 08:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Would you kindly add a footnote with this explanation, citing Kinservik? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with the text as it is, but, as I say above, please add from this quote if you wish. Tim riley talk 18:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've added a note after the mention of the comedy being presented. Please check that I've followed your note/citation scheme properly. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and slightly tweaked. Tim riley talk 15:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article says that in 1708 the actors left the theatre, and "Vanbrugh concentrated on opera". Vanbrugh's article says that he sold his interest in the theatre in 1708. Did he continue to manage it after that? Also, you mention someone named "Swiney" who "fled abroad" sometime before 1719. Did this Swiney buy out the lease in 1708? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the article carefully you will see Swiney introduced at the appropriate point. I have no idea what the article on Vanbrugh says, but the facts are as stated here. Tim riley talk 19:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks. I couldn't find it because it was misspelled -- the name is Swiny, not Swiney. But did Vanbrugh continue to manage the theatre after that? If not, why do we say that he "concentrated on opera"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He did. Tim riley talk 19:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Do your sources say when his management of the theatre ended? We say that "John James Heidegger took over the management" when Swiny fled, implying that Swiny was managing the theatre, rather than Vanbrugh. Can we clarify the management timeline? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My sources are available online, via the links indicated. Pray feel free to consult them and redraw here as you wish. Tim riley talk 23:13, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ha! I see what the problem is. I've clarified that Vanbrugh gave up management by 1708. Swiny took on various partners, and management of the theatre was different in different seasons. It seems too complicated and trivial to put in all the management changes while Swiny was leasholder. Swiny's article says that he declared bankruptcy in 1713, citing the following source, but I cannot access it. Can you, User:SandyGeorgia?: Kenny, Shirley Strum (1972). "A Broadside Prologue by Farquhar". Studies in Bibliography. 25: 179–185. ISSN 0081-7600.. It would be good to add in that year with the cite, if someone can verify that it says so. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot ... sorry :( I do not have journal access, and I can't get it via WP:TWL. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in that JSTOR link concerning Swiny after 1706, Ssilvers. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same section says that a "Royal Academy of Music" was formed to support Handel's productions. Was this different from the Royal Academy of Music that was formed in 1722? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See the footnote that explains this. Tim riley talk 19:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find where this RADA bit is mentioned in the body of the article? "The building, designed by Charles J. Phipps, was constructed in 1897 for the actor-manager Herbert Beerbohm Tree, who established the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art at the theatre." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oopsie, now found it (but we need some sorting of the acronym, used inconsistently in lead v. body). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Added acronym in brackets in the lead. Tim riley talk 18:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where do I find in the body of the article text/citations backing the spectacular in the lead? "In the early decades of the 20th century Tree produced spectacular productions of Shakespeare and other classical works". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the existing "he staged the plays in ways that appealed to spectators' taste for elaborate spectacle and realistic scenery and scenic effects" should suffice. Tim riley talk 18:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah ha ... good enough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might be insufficiently caffeinated this morning; where do I find in the body the text/citations backing this statement in the lead ? "Legitimate drama unaccompanied by music was prohibited by law in all but the two London patent theatres, ... "
    In Background: "In the late 17th century there were two patent theatre companies, licensed to stage plays without music". Tim riley talk 18:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is licensed enough to encompass prohibited by law; can we tighten that ? The lead of patent theatre does say others were prohibited by law, but it would good for the reader to not have to click out to understand that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. In fact (not sure whether it is Kevin or I who must be blamed) "licensed" is not quite the correct term, for technical legal reasons I shan't bore everyone with. Legally allowed is what we're talking about, and the tweak is duly twuck. Tim riley talk 19:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you all run through the lead and make sure everything is in the body? Then I suspect we are close to closing this FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all set here. @Buidhe, Z1720, Hog Farm, Extraordinary Writ, Aza24, and Firefangledfeathers: Tim riley and Ssilvers, you also can opine whether the article is at FA standard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Missed some, @Mark E and AirshipJungleman29: to opine whether we are there yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And @DrKay: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hope it's still of FA standard, but as I see from the talk page statistics I have now written more of it than Kevin took to FA I don't think I can conscientiously express an opinion. Tim riley talk 20:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing to comment on except the rather irritatingly drab and dirty infobox image (I don't think the building has looked that brown in years, and the grey skies don't help!); perhaps there's a more up-to-date one lying around, or with all the good weather right now I might venture out and take a picture myself. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's bucketing down here now in N1, a couple of miles or so from the theatre. But point taken. Shall look for better (or take my own if the monsoon lets up). Tim riley talk 19:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it's any less drab, but File:Her Majesty's Theatre - Westminster, London, England 12298067136 o.jpg is actually of higher quality than the current image (5,137 × 3,425 pixels, versus the current image's 1,244 × 889 pixels). Then again, I don't think I've ever seen the building when it wasn't drab, so take this suggestion with a grain of salt. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to give it a read-through tomorrow afternoon or Monday. Hog Farm Talk 01:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks mostly OK to me, but I don't feel confident evaluating as I know little about the topic. (t · c) buidhe 01:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not finding the "vile and absurd edifice" quote from Malcolm in the cited source? Hog Farm Talk 18:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1853 Robert Browning's Colombe's Birthday played at the theatre. The Morning Post described it as "a delicate wreath of poetic flowers", too subtle for theatregoers accustomed to coarser offerings, and it was not a success" - the sources are newspaper reports dated 1863 - I'm assuming it's not a 10-year retrospective, so is either the 1853 or 1863 dates incorrect? Hog Farm Talk 18:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Her Majesty's Theatre in 1867.jpg - licensing is problematic, as there is no file source Hog Farm Talk 18:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the theatre remained dark until 1874, when it was sold to a Revivalist Christian group for £31,000" is what the article says, but the source only says "The new theatre remained empty until 1875, when it was opened for 'the evangelistic meetings of Messrs. Moody and Sankey" Hog Farm Talk 18:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the first in 2008 for the installation of a new sound systems and the second from March 2020 to July 2021 when London theatres closed because of the COVID-19 pandemic – the show has (at June 2023) been running at the theatre since 1986. It is the second longest-running West End musical in history (after Les Misérables)" - not in source, which is an award list Hog Farm Talk 18:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the image with licensing issues. So leaning close w/o FARC now. Hog Farm Talk 19:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image replaced with appropriate licence details. Tim riley talk 21:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect we are heading towards Close w/o FARC, but I just won't have time to read through until some time next week; life got crazy in both good and bad ways. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some concerns listed below:

  • "The original Victorian stage machinery remains beneath the stage of the theatre; the designer, Maria Björnson, found a way to use it "to show the Phantom travelling across the lake as if floating on a sea of mist and fire", in a scene in the musical." is cited to an obituary without an author. Is this source reliable, or should another source be found?
  • The Daily Telegraph, although editorially a notoriously Tory-biased paper, is a reliable source for news coverage, and like the similarly Tory The Times it never gives its obituaries a by-line. Tim riley talk 17:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The theatre is one of forty featured in the 2012 DVD documentary series Great West End Theatres, presented by Donald Sinden." Why is this notable, and not trivia?
  • Clearly an addition since the article was promoted to FA. Looks all right to me – this was a substantial series presented by one of our leading thesps – but happy to blitz if other editors think it trivial. Tim riley talk 17:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I recall that when that documentary was first mentioned in many of our theatre articles, there was a discussion about whether it was WP:NOTEWORTHY to mention, but I do not remember what the gist of the conclusion was, or even what my opinion was at the time -- I suspect that there was a consensus to add it, as it is still mentioned in 18 Wikipedia articles. User:SandyGeorgia, can you find the discussion(s) about it? What do you think about it from a WP:DUE point of view? If it makes any difference to anyone, I note that removing it would cause the image to the right to run down into the refs section and cause a lot of empty white space. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article looks OK, will take another look after the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep my concerns listed above have been addressed, and are minor enough that their resolution won't make much of a difference to the quality of this article. I have no further concerns. Z1720 (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/His_Majesty%27s_Theatre,_London/archive1&oldid=1165477869"