Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Trial by Jury

Shepherd source

<moved from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trial by Jury> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Please explain how Marc Shepherd meets WP:SPS, specifically: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Marc Shepherd wrote quite a number of scholarly articles - I don't have a list to hand of his most major publications, but here's a google scholar link: [1] I think, therefore, that he is a recognised scholar in the field, even if not one of the really big ones. As such, he can be trusted to get the lists right, and that's all we really need to trust him for. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
    • The google links you provided don't answer my query, and Shepherd is being used to source critical opinion:
      • Of the recordings by the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company, those from 1927 and 1964 have been well-received. The 1961 Sargent and the 1995 Mackerras recordings are also admired.[120]
    • SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, that critical opinion isn't supported by the citation, and isn't attributed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, the citation does support the critical opinion, based on the site's star rating system. Shoemaker is wrong: I wrote the section recently; it is not "legacy text". Isn't it better for the article to make some qualitative comparisons among the various recordings than to leave the reader to select one at random from the list? There is no other source on the web OR ELSEWHERE that provides this information. Shepherd's star ratings are the most useful comparative assessment in the world for G&S recordings: See below. As for attribution, that would be easy enough to add. I suggest that we reinstate the description about which recordings are recommended. Also, I note that Marc Shepherd has not contributed more than a couple edits to this article in the past year, and those were at our request simply to add references to the Rollins and Witts books, with which he is not affiliated. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • In that case, deleted. I trust the simple list of recordings is acceptable? I think what happened is that we got a bit of legacy text that was meant to have gotten better cited but ended up being missed because noone sslapped a citation needed on the first, uncited part. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
    • That is not correct, Shoe. It was cited; Sandy is saying that the cite does not support the conclusion. See above. I have put the text back in and added the attribution that I think Sandy is looking for. Let's discuss how to clarify the Discography's status as a reliable source. This is very important to all the G&S articles. There is no more difinitive source for information, including comparative assessments, of recordings of G&S in the world. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, it is now attributed to Shepherd, which makes it more important to establish him as a published expert, since this text appears now to rely solely on his assignment of stars. (Is there no other critical analysis of these works?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
        • There is no other *comparative* analysis. You can find old article in Gramophone magazine and The Gilbert and Sullivan Journal reviewing specific recordings, but these are all out of print, so the Discography is the only easily accessible place to find reviews of most G&S recordings. There are few important G&S recordings issued since the advent of the internet. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Without a doubt, Shepherd's discography is the most complete and best researched discography of Gilbert and Sullivan in the world. It was compiled over a period of many years and includes reviews by dozens of Gilbert and Sullivan experts beside Shepherd. Every Gilbert and Sullivan expert in the world knows Marc Shepherd. He is an editor and consultant for the Broude Brothers critical editions of the Gilbert and Sullivan scores. Broude has published the only critical edition of Trial by Jury. Shepherd has published the best modern-engraving score in the world of The Grand Duke, and has published numerous articles on Gilbert and Sullivan in the various Gilbert and Sullivan specialty publications, such as GASBAG, The Palace Peeper, The Trumpet Bray and elsewhere. He is attributed as an expert or consultant on dozens, if not hundreds of books and articles about G&S and related subjects. See, e.g., "From First Baseman to Primo Basso: The Odd Saga of the Original Pirate King (Tra La!)", NINE: A Journal of Baseball History and Culture - Volume 15, Number 2, Spring 2007. People writing about G&S usually say this about G&S sources: "Two websites are of great value - Marc Shepherd's exhaustively annotated discography and the vast resources of Jim Farron and Paul Howarth's Gilbert and Sullivan Archive" [2]. One could go on. I disagree with Shoemaker: Marc Shephered is a major Gilbert and Sullivan authority, not a minor one. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I did not mean to disparage Shepherd: I was not aware of all his work, but had the impression he had only writen quite a lot of insightful journal articles, but nothing pulling together his work into a large-scale form, such as a book. However, this was in ignorance of his role on the Broude scholarly editions of scores - heavily researched scholarly editions of Gilbert and Sullivan. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
      • The answers above still don't address WP:SPS; if you all prefer, we can take this to the talk page here for sorting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:SPS, we need evidence that Shepherd is an "established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Looking at the statements above:

• It was compiled over a period of many years and includes reviews by dozens of Gilbert and Sullivan experts beside Shepherd.

  Doesn't satisfy WP:SPS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

  Why wouldn't the fact that a websource is compiled by an expert from reviews and submissions of dozens of experts in a field be helpful in establishing reliability? -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

  What has to be established is: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. A website compiled by him doesn't establish that he is a published expert according to others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Every Gilbert and Sullivan expert in the world knows Marc Shepherd.

  Doesn't satisfy WP:SPS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• He is an editor and consultant for the Broude Brothers critical editions of the Gilbert and Sullivan scores. Broude has published the only critical edition of Trial by Jury.

  Nothing in the links provided mentions Marc Shepherd. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

  See below -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Shepherd has published the best modern-engraving score in the world of The Grand Duke, and has published numerous articles on Gilbert and Sullivan in the various Gilbert and Sullivan specialty publications, such as GASBAG, The Palace Peeper, The Trumpet Bray and elsewhere.

  We need evidence (that other reviewers can evaluate) of independent reliable third-party sources; none yet provided. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

  See below

• He is attributed as an expert or consultant on dozens, if not hundreds of books and articles about G&S and related subjects.

  Nothing in this statement evidences the kind of info we need for WP:SPS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

  • See, e.g., "From First Baseman to Primo Basso: The Odd Saga of the Original Pirate King (Tra La!)", NINE: A Journal of Baseball History and Culture - Volume 15, Number 2, Spring 2007.

    Since I can't see those, is the Baseball article about G&S or about baseball? What you all need to establish is that 1) these are reliable sources, 2) they are independent, and 3) they are relevant to the field (G&S).

    It is about an opera singer, Signor Brocolini, who had an important career in G&S and became also historically important in baseball. Shepherd is acknowledged as having assisted the author with the G&S side of the research. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

    OK, that's one piece of the three; it's relevant to G&S. What is said about him (Shepherd) in those publications and what was his role? What is missing here is a quote or indication that some indpendent party uses him as an expert in the field. How do those publications establish him as an expert or consultant (do you have a quote)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• People writing about G&S usually say this about G&S sources: "Two websites are of great value - Marc Shepherd's exhaustively annotated discography and the vast resources of Jim Farron and Paul Howarth's Gilbert and Sullivan Archive" [3]. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

  Unclear that classicalnotes.net is a reliable source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

  See below for more. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• One could go on. I disagree with Shoemaker: Marc Shephered is a major Gilbert and Sullivan authority, not a minor one.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Responses above. I'm not saying he's not reliable per WP:SPS. I'm saying the responses to establish that he is a reliable source need to conform to WP:SPS, and you all may as well nail this down once and for all, since he is often cited in Wiki articles, and I have had concerns in the past about COI, since he edits Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Let me know if the info above and below does the trick, or what else I should be looking for. There has got to be a way to establish the most important source in the world on recordings in a field as reliable, even if the editor has not published books. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't his work as editor of critical editions for an established academic music publisher by a publication by a reliable third party publication? Plus, doesn't the scope and uniqueness of the Discography speak for itself? If the discography doesn't *technically* comply with SPS, this seems like a prime situation for WP:IAR because of the specialty nature of the subject. BTW, there won't be a third-party book publication of the discography, because new recordings keep coming out. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not inclined to IAR on this one, because there is also a potential COI, considering he heavily edits (contributes to) the G&S articles, and we use his personal website. His credentials per WP:SPS should be settled; they probably can, we just need the info. His work as a critical editor may do it, but you haven't supplied that as far as I can tell. You claim it, but haven't given us evidence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Also used to cite a direct quote, which I only now realized because, as Ealdgyth points out, the citations aren't correctly formatted. I missed, for example, this citation to Shepherd:

• Recording and re-issue history available at Shepherd, Marc. "How to Write Your Own Gilbert and Sullivan Opera (1953)", A Gilbert and Sullivan Discography (2002), Retrieved on June 12, 2008.

Please use consistent citation formatting, identifying author, title, publisher, etc. rather than running them into one blue link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No - this is only meant to cite that the composition is from 1953. Ssilvers thought it would be convenient if people had easy access to a list of recordings, instead of just citing one, arbitrarily chosen. I agree with him, but thought it would be confusing to put it after the quote, so we decided to cite that it came from 1953. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Not exactly, Shoe. The comedy routine originated in 1953, and I believe that all the recordings listed are the original and re-issues of the 1953 performance at The Town Hall in NYC. The page is cited to show not only the list of recordings, but also a description of what the recording is about. But, Shoe, I don't think Sandy is worried about which issue of the recording is being cited, I think she is worried about the citation format, and I believe that it has now been fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Some mentions of Shepherd

Hello, Sandy. First of all, Shepherd has mostly retired from Wikipedia and very rarely edits the G&S articles any more. The only edits to this article added by Shepherd in the past year were some references to a third-party source that he added specifically at our request. Secondly, I have never understood what you mean by his "personal" website. Are you referring to the Discography, or something else? As for his "third-party' published G&S work for Broude, it is described in the introduction to the critical editions of the Broude scores. See for example, this site notes that the forthcoming Pirates of Penzance score is edited by Shepherd, but other scores in the series acknowledge Shepherd's assistance in their introductions. Here is an article in Opera News calling Shepherd a G&S scholar. This article mentions Shepherd's contributions and calls him a "top G&S scholar". Here is another acknowledgement of Shepherd. Also note that Shepherd is Listmaster for the worldwide G&S discussion group Savoynet, which has 700 members who discuss G&S topics on a daily basis. Shepherd is a prolific reviewer of G&S scores: [4], [5] and books: [6], [7]. Here is an article praising an article by Shepherd: "The history of the writing and earliest performances of Pirates is quite complicated enough without our adding to it. To see it set out with astonishing clarity, one needs to read Marc Shepherd’s article ‘Climbing over rocky mountain – the Happy Accident that Wasn’t’xxiv.' This is a masterful summary and discussion of all the conflicting evidence that has been adduced over many years." This notes that Shepherd's liner notes are include in a series of Pavilion Records CDs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssilvers (talk • contribs) 17:11, June 23, 2008

Other readers might not realize you and I have tried to sort this on several other articles, which is why I think it important to nail it down this time, particularly since y'all are now churning out FAs :-) Thanks for working through this. I also want to work through this because we so often get answers to queries about reliable sources that don't specifically engage WP:SPS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I completely agree, and it will be very helpful to get a good summary of why this site is reliable. When we are done, I hope you can advise us on how to compile the evidence in a way that will be efficient to use in the future. Below, I try to re-organize my various evidence, and I have added some stuff, although the darn spam filter blocks two of the cites I added below, and I had to add spaces into them (lulu and findsearch). -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

http://www.cris.com/~oakapple (The Gilbert & Sullivan Discography) is Shepherd's site, published by him, no? Because of that, it has to meet WP:SPS. Can you give us the quote from Broude that establishes Shepherd as a recognized expert? We may be getting crossed up in semantics: saying that he has edited a score (in my mind) establishes only that he's a musician, not that he's a published expert in the field of G&S. See the difference? We need quotes that establish specifically what WP:SPS asks for, not indications that he has edited a score. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

See below. Shepherd is on the editorial board of Broude. He is editor of the critical apparatus for the forthcoming 'Pirates' score and serves as a consultant on the rest of the series. If you look at Broude's critical edition of 'Pinafore', you will see him listed on the editorial board. The reason that the Broude project is taking so long is that Broude uses only the most knowledgeable experts in the world to edit these critical editions and their extensive critical apparatus. These are not typography edits, but research into original manuscripts and other original sources. It is very painstaking work. In any case, one of these experts, Bruce Miller, died, and that is gumming up the works. I think that if you ask people in the academic musicology field, you will find that editing the critical apparatus of a "critical edition" is definitely considered expert work, and that the Broude editions are considered the highest quality critical editions. I have no idea how to establish this! I do not have Broude's "Pinafore" score, do you Shoe? I do know that he is clearly listed there as being a member of their editorial board. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

OK (did the link you provided show he was on their editorial board)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the best way to see that is to look at the published H.M.S. Pinafore score itself. Unfortunately, Broude's website is not very complete. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This article says only that Marc is one of the G&S experts involved in the Broude critical edition project. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Working through the others ... ah, ha ... Opera News calls Shepherd a G&S Scholar, that is closer to what we need. NEGASS calls him a "top scholar" and that helps as well, but ... with all due respect, we have to remember that because G&S is in the public domain and any theatre company can perform most of those works without paying for rights, some of those organizations are quite homegrown (I've been involved in G&S productions). I feel better about sources like Opera News. Defreitas bookseller does not appear at all to be a reliable third-party source for the kind of info we need (they sell books). Being listmaster for a discussion group definitely doesn't meet SPS (by that criterion, many Wiki editors could be experts on many topics :-) Being a reviewer of scores doesn't convince me either: we need acknowledgement within the industry (e.g.; Opera News) that shows that independent third-party reliable sources consider him an expert on G&S; instead, you've posted reprints of his internet postings. It begins to look like circular logic. The Chimes Musical Theatre site and U Mich site don't convince me (I'm not referring to what they say about Shepherd, rather whether those are the best sources, on the same level as The Met, they look somewhat homegrown as well, unsure there?). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Some responses: NEGASS is not a performing society, it is a G&S appreciation society, and its newsletter, the Trumpet Bray are supervised by (admittely amateur) editors who are knowledgeable about G&S. Also, De Freitas is certainly a bookseller, but the fact that they put this list of experts at the top of their website shows that everybody in the industry knows who the experts are. Really, there are not that many in the field! Next, the reviews listed are Shepherd's reviews published in the publications of the various G&S societies around the world that are the only places where G&S reviews are published. All I am asserting is that he is a known G&S reviewer, and the various G&S societies are eager to publish his reviews. The UMich publication is the second best-known G&S newsletter in the world after The Gilbert and Sullivan News (which I have now added to the list). I don't know what to tell you about Chimes, except that the article that cites Shepherd there is considered one of the two most important sources about Thespis ever written, and it is written by people who, like Shepherd, are considered important experts in the G&S world. What makes you think Chimes is not a RS? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know Chimes (that's why I replied that I was unsure on that one). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Concluding: if I'm reading correctly that Opera News is associated with The Met, that is the sort of info we need. Do you have something else on that level? To avoid edit conflicts, I'll post this and then move on to looking at the new info below. (That was added after I typed this, so it may be outdated, but I want to post this anyway, since we so often have problems with editors understanding how to respond to WP:SPS queries.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science

I believe I have found some information that is, at the least, very good evidence of its reliability.

The Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science, (edited by Miriam A. Drake, ISBN-10: 0824720792; ISBN-13: 978-0824720797)is available at google books [8]

From pp. 1937-38: [Forgive me if I use a lot of brief summaries: You can check the link, but I have to type this all out by hand while flipping between windows, which is highly annoying.]

“ Specialised discographic reference tools are available on the internet in abundance. GRAMMY search, from the Recording Academy, is... [description]. Best selling recordings dating back to 1958 can be identified with the [RIAA]'s Gold and Platinum Database search [link]. Many excellent online discographies devoted to individual musicians are the work of dedicated afficianados. Examples of these resources are [a Miles Davis discography], Marc Shepherd's Gilbert and Sullivan Discography <www.cris.com/~oakapple/gasdisc>, [two others]. ”

In short, this massive encyclopedia, in a section that recommends only six links for online sources about recordings, includes Marc Shepherd's discography as one of these six. I think you'll agree that this is very substantial evidence of its reliability as a source.

Of course, if we do the work now, we never have to worry about it being challenged again. Hence, I fully agree with Sandy's questioning in this case, and agree that being tough on us now will save us repeating this discussion over and over as we work through the G&S canon. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That establishes his discography, but if you want to source critical opinion about G&S works to him, I believe we should have more than just acceptance that he maintains a good "dedicated aficionado" list. Another source on par with what I interpret Opera News to be (am I interpreting it correctly?) will help. And I do hope your understand that I'm being tougher on you now because, in the past, there was no chance an MT article would make it through FAC because the MT Project was a wreck, but now that you all are in good enough shape to bring articles to FAC, I do want to make sure you know how to respond to SPS queries. In the end, Ealdgyth and others will need to weigh in here as to whether they are comfortable with Shepherd as an RS, but I'm trying to lead the discussion in the ways it needs to go to fully establish if he meets SPS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we source critical opinion about the G&S works to Shepherd, only critical opinion about the relative quality of the recordings. Am I missing something? As to Opera News, yes it is published by the Met. BTW, the G&S project has nothing to do with the MT project. I happen to be a member of both. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Am I reading it wrong? It's much better now that it's attributed, but maybe you can tighten the wording to indicate it's the relative quality of the recordings. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Reorganized for clarity ??? I have no idea what you've done except alter commentary ahead of my response, so it's no longer readable. Ss, please refactor to remove your subsequent comments to below my responses; I don't want to sort this page again to figure out what's what. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it took me until now to get to all the comments. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I moved your "reorganized for clarity" to a new section (below), and now will try to sort through it to see what new info was added. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Newer discussion

[Reorganized information for clarity]: First, Shepherd has mostly retired from Wikipedia and very rarely edits the G&S articles any more. The only edits to this article added by Shepherd in the past year were some references to a third-party source that he added specifically at our request. Secondly, I have never understood what you mean by his "personal" website. Are you referring to the Discography, or something else?

Third-party mentions of the G&S Discography:

• The Discography is cited find.com/find.html?id=2743017&pid=r&mode=ALL&n=0&query=Shepherd+Discography dozens of times at The G&S Archive, which calls it outstanding.

  That is a dead link for me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

1) Re: Dozens of cites at G&S Archive: You have to take the space out of the word "free find" - Wikipedia is blocking the link, so I added a space: find.com/find.html?id=2743017&pid=r&mode=ALL&n=0&query=Shepherd+Discography

and 2) Calls discography "outstanding". Can you see them now? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• According to Andrew Crowther, "Marc Shepherd's Gilbert and Sullivan Discography… is an invaluable site detailing recordings of the works of Gilbert and/or Sullivan."

  This one also leads in circles. Andrew Crowther (unless you have other info) appears to be another fansite, and we would have to establish that he meets WP:SPS. We need sources like The Met, newspapers, books, that call Shepherd an expert, not other self-published G&S aficionado sites. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

  He is the author of Contradiction Contradicted Amazon link, a highly-rated book. Also, head o f the W.S. Gilbert society, etc, etc. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

  That's better. But we have one SPS (Crowther) used to justify another SPS (Shepherd); I've never stretched quite so thin, but evidence is accumulating and every little bit helps :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• The discography has been called one of the two most valuable internet sites about G&S: "Two websites are of great value - Marc Shepherd's exhaustively annotated discography and the vast resources of Jim Farron and Paul Howarth's Gilbert and Sullivan Archive" [9].

  What makes classicalnotes.net a reliable source? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

  It is a collection of articles by Peter Gutmann (journalist). They are (according to Gutmann) previously published, though generally expanded somewhat for the site. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

  That should help; add a summary of this explanation to list below, briefly? It's another case of an SPS justifying an SPS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Shepherd has published numerous articles on Gilbert and Sullivan in the various Gilbert and Sullivan specialty publications, including several articles on G&S subjects in “The Gilbert and Sullivan News” (the official organ of the Gilbert and Sullivan Society, London, which is distributed to Gilbert and Sullivan fans worldwide), GASBAG (one of the most widely-read G&S newsletterd), The Palace Peeper (the newsletter of the G&S Society of NY), The Trumpet Bray (the newsletter of NEGASS) and many others. He is a prolific reviewer of G&S scores: [10], [11] and books: [12], [13]. Here is an article praising an article by Shepherd: "The history of the writing and earliest performances of Pirates is quite complicated enough without our adding to it. To see it set out with astonishing clarity, one needs to read Marc Shepherd’s article ‘Climbing over rocky mountain – the Happy Accident that Wasn’t’xxiv.' This is a masterful summary and discussion of all the conflicting evidence that has been adduced over many years."

  Discussed these above, before the page reorganization (unclear if new info is added). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Shepherd wrote the liner notes for Pearl reissues of several vintage D’Oyly Carte Opera Company recordings.[14]

• See WP:SPS, commercial, not sure on this one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm only saying that he is in demand by commercial record producers to write liner notes. Query: are commercial recordings' liner notes RS for WP articles? Even if not, it seems significant that Pearl asked him to write the liner notes for the series. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that record companies choose him to write liner notes is not bad evidence of him as an expert on early G&S recordings. Opera recordings tend to have very scholarly liner notes. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Shepherd has published the best modern-engraving score in the world of The Grand Duke, http://www.lu lu.com/content/111595

• Dead link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

A better link would be here, which is the Gilbert and Sullivan archive link to it. The archive, of course, has long been agreed to be a reliable source. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, except that the G&S Archive info on it is out of date (So is the Lulu website). The score has been revised and beta tested now. In any case, if you want a Grand Duke score, it's the best one available. I can't prove it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, but it's probably irrelevant to Wikipedia policy on reliable sources as relates to the discography. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Shepherd serves on the editorial board and is a consultant for the Broude Brothers critical editions of the Gilbert and Sullivan scores, as noted in the introduction to, for example the recent "H.M.S. Pinafore" critical edition. Broude has published the only critical edition of Trial by Jury. This site notes Shepherd is editing the forthcoming Pirates of Penzance score from Broude, and other scores in the series acknowledge Shepherd's assistance in their introductions and note that he is on the Board.

  I'm not certain what I'm looking at between the German website and Broude here; pehaps Ealdgyth (who knows book publishers better than I do) can sort this one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Just look at the list of scores and editors, and you will see that Shepherd is one of two editors listed for the "Pirates" score. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: http://www.sullivan-forschung.de/brou.htm provides on-web evidence of this editorship. Of course, the most reliable source is the information in the scores themselves, but that, obviously, is a little hard to get hold of. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Basically, Marc Shepherd was selected to edit The Pirates of Penzance for a major critical edition of Gilbert and Sullivan. However, Broude Brothers does not have a very good website, and, as that edition of Pirates is still in preparation, we can't link to a site selling it. Hence the German website, which is (I believe) copying the list of editors found inside the Broude editions. Ask Ssilvers: I believe he has a Broude edition, I don't =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no, I don't own any of the Broude scores. Music libraries have the new Pinafore and Trial scores, though. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Shepherd as an acknowledged expert in the field:
  • Here is an article in Opera News calling Shepherd a G&S scholar].
  • This article mentions Shepherd's contributions and calls him a "top G&S scholar". Here is another acknowledgement of Shepherd.
  • Shepherd is attributed as an expert or consultant on dozens, if not hundreds, of books and articles about G&S and related subjects. See, e.g., "From First Baseman to Primo Basso: The Odd Saga of the Original Pirate King (Tra La!)", NINE: A Journal of Baseball History and Culture - Volume 15, Number 2, Spring 2007. This is a book about Signor Brocolini, a singer who had an important G&S career and was also historically important in establishing professional baseball in the US. The article acknowledges Shepherd's assistance with respect to the research on the G&S parts of the article.

    Responded to these above; if you have a quote on the baseball book, I think that would do it (see comments above) when combined with the rest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Shepherd is Listmaster for the worldwide G&S discussion group Savoynet, which has 700 members who discuss G&S topics on a daily basis. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

  Unrelated to WP:SPS; many Wiki editors would meet SPS if that were the criterion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• This source calls Shepherd "one of the world's foremost authorities on G&S" and notes his "work on the new Broude full scores". -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

  Another SPS; we're looking for independent reliable third-party sources. Have you searched newspapers and magazines? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Newer newer discussion

I'm going to put anything here that I find that helps satisfy WP:SPS

• Here is an article in Opera News calling Shepherd a G&S scholar.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• According to Andrew Crowther, "Marc Shepherd's Gilbert and Sullivan Discography… is an invaluable site detailing recordings of the works of Gilbert and/or Sullivan." Crowther is the author of Contradiction Contradicted Amazon link, a highly-rated book on G&S. Unclear how we feel about one SPS supporting another SPS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• NINE: A Journal of Baseball History and Culture - Volume 15, Number 2, Spring 2007, is about an opera singer, Signor Brocolini, who had an important career in G&S and became also historically important in baseball. We need a quote from that book, that supposedly acknowledges Shepherd. What does the book say about Shepherd? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No, this is a long article in the journal NINE... called "From First Baseman to Primo Basso: The Odd Saga of the Original Pirate King (Tra La!)". I used to have a copy of the article, when I wrote the Brocolini article, but I no longer have it. I guess a library would have the journal, as it is a recent issue, but Shoe is in Scotland, and I can't leave work to go to a library for this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I have the article. Footnote 53 says "...I am indebted to Gilbert and Sullivan experts David Stone and Marc Shepherd for these details and verifying other details about Clark's involvement with Mr. R D'Oyly Carte's Opera Company." - Is this what you were thinking of? Awadewit (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. This is included in the summary of the evidence. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan/Marc Shepherd's Gilbert and Sullivan Discography. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Some questions left above, and I suggest asking Ealdgyth to have a look now. Keeping the conversation correctly threaded will be helpful. There are many dubious pieces; unclear if others will think that all together they add up to a big picture, but knowing how the G&S world works, I'm leary. It's a lot of aficionado sites. Those book publishers, the baseball book, any newspaper sources, and the Opera News might be good enough to satisfy others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Can someone summarize the Broude sitation to here for others? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It summarises to "He is the co-editor (with the late Bruce Miller) of a forthcoming volume (The Pirates of Penzance) of Broude Brothers' major critical edition of the Gilbert and Sullivan operas. His editorship will produce a scholarly edition full score, set of parts, vocal score, etc. He also sits on the editorial board and acts as a consultant for all of the other volumes, consisting of the other 12 surviving G&S operas. That this is so can be found by looking in the currently-published critical edition of H.M.S. Pinafore by Broude. However, as you probably don't have one of those to hand, this German website will confirm that we're not just making it up. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there's enough on this page, but it's all in bits and pieces. The problem with these SPS queries is that editors throw in info that is unrelated to Wiki criteria for meeting SPS (like moderator of a discussion forum :-) I'm satisfied for this article (if others are), but I suggest tightening up a summary for future articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll make a summary page. I've been in enough Wikidrama to get very good at setting up evidence. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan/Marc Shepherd's Gilbert and Sullivan Discography