Template:Did you know nominations/Eric Thorne

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 13:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Eric Thorne

(
)
Thorne as Baron Popoff
Thorne as Baron Popoff

Created by Moonraker (talk). Self-nominated at 01:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC).

  • Comment. Lots of people have played Baron Popoff in The Merry Widow over the past century (Thorne did not originate it), so I don't think the hook is very interesting. In addition, this is a poorly-written article with lots of stubby paragraphs, lots of MOS problems, incomplete references, etc. I attempted some clean-up, but the nominator resisted MOS corrections, such as straight quotes instead of curly quotes. Moreover, I pointed out that some claims in the article are dubious. In particular, it is not possible that Thorne "had had an unbroken run of eight years in" La Poupée. In those days, touring seasons were not "unbroken"; it is extremely unlikely that La poupée, an English adaptation of a French comic opera by Edmond Audran, would tour continuously for 8 years; and the only evidence cited is one of Thorne's obituaries, in Western Morning News. Obituaries in those days were prone to hyperbole. If Thorne's career had featured such an extraordinary run, all of his obituaries, and any other contemporary writings about his career, would have focused on it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  1. ”Lots of people have played Baron Popoff”: true, but a hook does not need to be about a unique achievement, and almost none are.
  2. ”a poorly-written article”: your opinion, not buttoned down by your other points.
  3. ”lots of stubby paragraphs”: you mean short, and you prefer long paragraphs, but this is not a serious issue, there is no DYK or WP rule requiring long paragraphs.
  4. ”(Thorne did not originate it)”: true, and no one has said he did.
  5. ”so I don't think the hook is very interesting”: a matter of opinion, and a hook does not have to be *very* interesting; this one is better than most and is chosen for the image.
  6. ”lots of MOS problems” MOS is not a set of rules that everyone must comply with exactly, differences are acceptable.
  7. “incomplete references”: I do not see any, please say which you mean.
  8. ”I attempted some clean-up, but the nominator resisted MOS corrections, such as straight quotes instead of curly quotes”: not at all, I simply use the ones my iPad creates and have no objection to straight ones, please feel free to change. Most of your changes were helpful and are still there.
I see that someone came to rescue you. It is appalling that an experienced WP editor can't be bothered to follow the MOS. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  1. “Moreover, I pointed out that some claims in the article are dubious”: only one, the next item.
  2. ”In particular, it is not possible that Thorne "had had an unbroken run of eight years in" La Poupée. In those days, touring seasons were not "unbroken"; it is extremely unlikely that La poupée, an English adaptation of a French comic opera by Edmond Audran, would tour continuously for 8 years”: You may be right about that, but the article merely notes what is said in a cited obituary.
  3. ”If Thorne's career had featured such an extraordinary run, all of his obituaries, and any other contemporary writings about his career, would have focused on it”: the obituaries do all mention it, and so does the only other later article about Thorne, which is cited on other matters. I did not find any contemporary overviews of his career. Moonraker (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Then cite other obituaries that mention it. Just in case you are unclear, the "Who Was Who" article is not an obituary, it is merely, like you, repeating what one obituary said. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree, the obituaries are what appeared a few days after Thorne’s death. I have now found and added two more citations for Thorne and Gastelle playing in La Poupée. We now have 1897, 1899, and 1905. Moonraker (talk) 02:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
But it was not an "unbroken" run. It was touring seasons -- possibly eight of them, but possibly not. In any case, the Theatricalia site that you cited shows that he played other roles during this period. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Now the point about La Poupee is tediously over-written. Why not just say that he toured for a reported 8 years in the role, cite all the sources, and leave it at that, unless a more authoritative source is found?
Your last revision is fine by me, we can leave it there. I see your edit summary “reduced this to a sensible statement. Please do not add silly garbage back into the article.“ But there was no garbage. Also, the theatricalia source you removed was yours, added in as a hyperlink reading “but we know this is not true, as he is recorded as playing other roles during this time”. I changed that to read “However, as Thorne also sang other roles during those years, the run was not continuous” and edited the bare link into a citation. You have now deleted that, no problem. But please calm down. Moonraker (talk) 04:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Comment: I agree with Ssilvers that a hook which has no more to offer than the name of the character is not unique. How about using a review, to relate to the image? ... or say a bit about the production? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Also: project opera recommends "role" vs. "part", and "appears as" vs. "sang". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
... or "performed" rather than "sang", if it was a stage role rather than merely a concert. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Gerda, I see this hook is very like your own here, but with only one credit and not two! Anyway, personal preferences come in when thinking of hooks. Let’s not get away from the rules of DYK, which are there for reviewers to use to test the hooks that come forward. They do not need to be strictly in line with every set of project guidance, that has other purposes. You like longer, more rambling hooks, while I prefer shorter ones, but does this ALT appeal to you? I do not like the length, but it does tie in with the picture. Moonraker (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
  • ALT1 ... that Eric Thorne's performance as Baron Popoff in The Merry Widow (pictured) was praised for being "clothed by his characteristic gesture and mannerism"?
    Source: "Mr. Eric Thorne" in the Yorkshire Evening Post (Yorkshire, England), 01 December 1908, p. 4
    Thank you for trying, and a good approach. I like short hooks better than long ones, and I don't like rambling ones, and I don't care much about DYK rules ;) - The wanted short hook should (for me) still say something that ideally is unique to the person, and performing a certain role is not it, and even less so if the role is a minor role in a work that is often played. If it was the title role in a rarity on stage, I'd be happy. In your ALT1, I find "praised" needlessly not neutral, and "clothed by" too wordy, but the rest of the quote is just fine. Hoping for ALT2. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
The problem here, Gerda Arendt, is that in effect you are inventing new rules made out of personal preferences. Yes, the word "praised" is not neutral, it is describing the review, which was positive and not negative. You may find a moment to read it. There is no rule against using quotations, and when one is used it is what it is. What you say about "clothed by" is a personal opinion. I do not think I am going to spend much more time on this page. I do not care enough how the nomination goes. DYK was nothing like this in its best days! Moonraker (talk) 07:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I think something like this would be a more interesting hook: -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  • ALT2 ... that although Eric Thorne was never a big star in London's West End, he was "a great favourite in the provinces", including as Baron Popoff in The Merry Widow (pictured)?
    Sources: D. Forbes-Winslow's Daly's: the Biography of a Theatre (1944), p. 91 and "Eric Thorne" (obituary), Leeds Mercury (Yorkshire, England), 29 November 1922, p. 6
  • Ssilvers, thank you for the effort. I see no objection to that. Moonraker (talk) 07:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
I approve ALT2, thinking that the article meets DYK criteria per Ssilvers review, - this is not GA. - I won't take reviewing credit for this, just want to help a good hook. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, now that the dubious claim has been removed, the basic MOS corrections have been made, and the author names and other refs inserted, I have no objection to this article being approved for DYK. Query: Is it not a requirement for DYK that articles follow at least the basic MOS guidelines? BTW, I am not a DYK reviewer, so, Gerda, if you know what to do, go ahead. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Which MOS guidelines would you see not followed? Guidelines are not my field of expertise, admitted, help always welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I think they all should be followed, but I am saying that I hope that it is required for DYKs to at least make an effort to follow them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I could approve ALT2. Alternatively:
ALT3: ... that a reviewer wrote that Eric Thorne performed as Baron Popoff in The Merry Widow (pictured) with "his characteristic gesture and mannerism"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Eric_Thorne&oldid=956810279"