Talk:From Here to Eternity (musical)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Copyedits[edit]

Hello, I've just copyedited this article to fill a request at WP:GOCE/REQ. A few notes:

  • In one sentence, I wasn't sure what you were trying to say. So I put a clarification tag on it. Please feel free to remove that tag after you've made that particular sentence more clear.
  • Maybe this article should be renamed to From Here to Eternity: The Musical. "The Musical" is obviously a subtitle, and you put subtitles after colons... I don't know.
  • I am an American, as you can probably tell. And it is late here, so if I have unwittingly added any awful Americanism to this article please do remove them. :)

Have a good day. Bobnorwal (talk) 05:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that it had to be the uncensored original text rather than the censored novel or the film.Blethering Scot 12:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts[edit]

I'll play around with the prose and leave any comments here.

  • Since this, I assume, is a UK play, the figure in dollars seems incongruous. It should probably be expressed in figures and it should specify what country is meant. A rough conversion into sterling would be good.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The source quotes in dollars because the rights were from America. In current exchange rate that would be £24,839.Blethering Scot 18:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why not have an introductory paragraph to the Background section (that is, a new first paragraph) discussing the book and film, From Here to Eternity. Simply give the basics, and how successful they were. There may be RS in the film and book articles. Nothing fancy, just background. We are a long way from WWII and today's generation may not be familiar with them.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I take it is ok to use sources not mentioning the musical i.e. ones just covering novel and movie.Blethering Scot 18:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if there are any decent online sources in those articles, just grab them.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"a tape of music and lyrics" There's an issue here. Possibly the tape included songs, or spoken lines, I do not know. But it would not have been said to include "lyrics".--Wehwalt (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Full songs, i was trying to say that Brayson had written both the music and lyrics on the original tapes, whereas now Rice did the majority of lyrics.Blethering Scot 18:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Were they just vocals or will the source support the term "demo"?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well Brayson initially just sent tapes with music but in later years sent tapes with music and lyrics for new show ideas of which From Here to Eternity is one. Most sources just say gave cassette tapes but the telegraph source says that but then adds about the later shows saying he was Writing the words as well as the music. I don't think saying demo tapes is a problem but i do feel its important to get the point across that he wrote complete songs.Blethering Scot 20:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to the books and film ill work on it over next few nights. You may need to help me rearrange the paras after it as some may end up being duplicated.Blethering Scot 20:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do. I think the question I had is what do you mean by "music"? Instrumentals? Vocals? Both?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Im only guessing as none of the sources are that detailed, but my reading is that is someone singing to music so both.Blethering Scot 17:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look at the phrasing.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The lengthy list of references makes editing a pain. There are techniques for separating out the references, if you are interested. It's not required.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by separating out.Blethering Scot 17:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like it is done in this article. That makes it easier to edit by not cluttering up the text with cite templates. It's not even a suggestion, it is just making you aware of a technique.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would conclude the next to last sentence of the new intro paragraph to the Background section with something like ", and was adapted into a 1953 film starring Bert Lancaster and Deborah Kerr, which achieved success at the box office and won the Academy Award for Best Picture." I leave the sourcing as an exercise to the student :) --Wehwalt (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Getting to work on this now.Blethering Scot 17:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you see if you are happy with the level of content in the background section now and maybe see if you can copyedit the bit i have just added.Blethering Scot 13:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The level looks about OK, though it will be nice once there is more to say about the musical. I don't know what "and subsequently army investigations into it to remain in the text." means.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The army's investigations into Gay Prostitution, its a big scene in the musical and in the uncensored novel. In regards to the musical there is obviously more to be added such as the critical reception section, which I'm useless at hence why the refs to choose from for it are hidden at the moment, not sure if you could maybe help me with that one. There are several blog's and videos on the productions website which i may be able to get other ideas from. Is there any other things you can think of that should be included when you say once more is known, I ask as it maybe is..Blethering Scot 21:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, the grammar is bad there. Also, you refer to the film not containing gay sex and prostitution. So the novel was both censored AND contains references to gay sex and prostitution (I'm not sure if I ever read it. I saw the movie in high school.)--Wehwalt (talk) 11:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right ok, the original novel contained that but the publisher cut it out before it was published (which is clear in article), therefore as the movie was based on the published novel it also did not. The movie actually had further cuts than the book did. The uncensored novel was released in 2011 and that is what this musical is based on, therefore it does contain all that. Im missing the point as it reads ok to me, which of course it would as i know what I'm trying to say. Im not seeing what is unclear about this line: James's story was censored by its publisher, Scribner as they would not allow profanity, references to gay prostitution and subsequently army investigations into it to remain in the text. James Fought against but had to back down. That reads to me like he wanted it to be there but they would not allow it. I agree the later sentence in the last paragraph needs made clearer. Also I'm not sure the change yu made to the first para makes sense at least to me. The line at the time of Pearl Harbor, would require assumed knowledge as to some Pearl Harbor is just a harbour. To me it needs to say attack on, i would also say mentioning Japanese attacks is important but obviously the link can be clicked to find that out further. Blethering Scot 17:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually rereading the novel it but its the uncensored version i now own.Blethering Scot 17:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's the "subsequently …" clause. It doesn't fit. Read it over to yourself.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean it sounds like the army investigated the book being published. There were gay prostitutes in the uncensored book, along side the female prostitutes, the publishers did not want the gay ones featured or the story of the army trying to investigate who used the gay prostitutes and then shut their business down. Also the army investigation, is such a big scene in the musical it needs mentioned. It has to be remembered how taboo all this would of been in 1951. Im still don't think I'm seeing this.Blethering Scot 17:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean it isn't a noun phrase. Let me play with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken it out, now that you've explained it. If James wasn't permitted to put gay prostitution into the novel, there would be no Army investigation, of course. So it sort of goes without saying, and I think it is more effective shorter and pithy.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I get that totally, but I do feel we still need to mention it though given how big the scene is. Could we not include it in the last paragraph where its explained whats in the uncensored version of the novel which the musical is based on. Think also somewhere might be worth adding the show had some walkouts during previews.[1]Blethering Scot 17:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you could mention the investigation when you say that the play is based on the uncensored book, just make sure you've attached a reference.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's already mentioned in the source that supports the original sentence. Im concerned that I'm just going to write it in the same way so there will still be something wrong with it.Blethering Scot 18:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I inserted it. The real problem was "subsequently", and that's a bit redundant (investigations tend to happen after the fact) so I took it out.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can probably do something about it, I'll at least look at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ive added where the title comes from, should the line of the poem be in italics.Blethering Scot 21:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at some FA poetry articles, it seems the answer is no.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks.Blethering Scot 21:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've rearranged the background section a bit, it seems to flow better this way.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would the audiences be offended at the nudity? The film's famous for the nude sex scene in the surf.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I know the scene in the movie was deemed to have been toned down. Having seen the show there was a lot of partial nudity but nothing, untoward or over the top in my view. You could use the latter part of the quote i.e. the gritty nature of the show. To be honest what i think he was trying to get at but didn't quite say was that it isn't the movie. If you take a look at the two sources one video, one text you may see a better quote use.Blethering Scot 18:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get into the sources if I have to, but you've seen the musical, you're a better judge of what the sources are talking about. I was somewhat struck by them being taught to salute all ranks. Surely they would only have saluted officers?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thats exactly what the two sources say re the nudity. Oh dear, thats not exactly what is says regarding the salutes. This is me trying to say what the source says without actually saying what it says. It says how to salute commissioned and non commissioned officers, apparently there is a difference. I was trying to be too clever for my own good. Also I'm concerned the background section may now be too longBlethering Scot 18:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Personally i wouldn't walk out over nudity, but if people were going to see the show based on viewing the movie it wouldn't be what they thought it was. The source does touch on it with a Rice Quote who says "The film was wonderful but it was made in 1953 and, 60 years on, we can take different aspects of the book and look at it through 21st Century eyes,"Blethering Scot 18:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not care about nudity personally but I understand it is a touchy point with some. Don't worry about the length, we can always cut it back. I would simply say "how to salute superior officers" and you're covered.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The music section is quite good. Can more be said?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because we cover so heavily about writing the lyrics in the background section I'm not sure theres much more to be added. However i do like this part of the New York Times article. Stuart Brayson, who offers up big band and swing alongside power ballads that seem designed to exist independently of the piece itself. Probably need to add ballads to music type, but i think once the critical reception section is done there is likely more in the reviews that could be included. I also think a lot of the sources in there could be used to back up other statements.Blethering Scot 18:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the reviews again?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are hidden after the cast section, scroll all the way down. I started using the FT quote but realised that was better off in music so its not really started, I'm rubbish at it.Blethering Scot 19:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will look at them tonight. The article needs expansion.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of thing do you think needs added. I'm Running out of ideas and as its a new musical we may be limited. One thing I've realised about sources through Kinky Boots is that far more info is released about shows on Broadway than there ever is for West End productions.Blethering Scot 19:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Synopsis?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of that and that the lead isn't long enough, however i think a summary is far more achievable than an actual synopsis as i don't feel i could do a full synopsis accurately. What kind of other things.Blethering Scot 19:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think of anything in particular. I'll work on the reviews.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ok, if you find or think of something let me know and ill go away and look for stuff.Blethering Scot 19:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll play with expanding the lede too. Once the reviews are in place. What about principal roles/first night cast?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The cast listed in the Principal roles and cast members were the opening cast. Do you mean adding what role each charachter plays, if thats what you mean i would be concerned as you could add a specific for a quarter of it, but the rest would be a more general description if that. I will be going out for next couple of hours but will pick up again after that.Blethering Scot 19:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think you're OK. I should be around when you get back.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, let me know how you get on.Blethering Scot 23:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break[edit]

There's a version of the cast/crew list here that could fill any holes.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only cast not included in the cast list, from that source and the original programme ref in article are a couple of swing only parts. Are you meaning we should expand the cast in production history. As for the roles it wouldn't help us expand a description of each role only cast name and part. Blethering Scot 07:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Material about the production that is in the Background section should be moved to the West End production area. That is, the stuff about the designers, preparation through saluting, etc.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a start on critical review. I'll add a second paragraph that talks more specifically about the performers and so forth. There is useful information in some of the reviews that might be integrated into other sections. I can't get the Telegraph review until next week as I have already used up my "free views" with them.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There may be enough material in the various reviews to pull together a short "Themes" sections. Some musical theatre FAs have theme sections, see South Pacific (musical).--Wehwalt (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can copy the telegraph article to my talk page for a short period if that would help.Blethering Scot 19:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you use the email this user function and send it to me?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
done.Blethering Scot 20:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking about themes, i like this interview with Campbell where he compares why the story is still relevant today. Comparing Pearl Harbour to modern day terrorist attacks. Under the heading We're saturated in Second World War stories – do you think there are particularly modern resonances for this one?Blethering Scot 21:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. 9/11 is a very close parallel. The sort of event where everyone knows where they were when.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see the two needs of the article as the synopsis and a themes section. Otherwise it's in pretty good shape.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ive altered a very brief summary for the book article and tweaked it to fit in.Blethering Scot 21:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, will take your word that it fits the play.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It most certainly does because I've added the bit about Lorene and Maggio. You could use the detailed book synopsis but you would have to cut large chunks and you wouldn't be able to source it. Are you any good with fair use rationale's, I'm about to re upload the theatre photo as fair use but I'm concerned now that all photo's in article will be fair use.Blethering Scot 16:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can help with that. I don't know, bottom line if it will be successful, because what is it about that image which cannot be replaced with prose? As for the synopsis, I haven't read the unexpurgated book (I read the original years ago and saw the movie), so I will trust you on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All the theatre images deleted at commons are being advised to upload here. Do you mean accepted in that they won't allow to be uploaded or that would likely fail a GA. Im going to work on themes tomorrow and ill ping you once I've started it.Blethering Scot 16:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A fair use rationale is for a specific article. Most likely the rationale would be questioned and you'd be left with the choice of removing it or likely having the GAN fail, and once it's no longer in the article, it would quickly be nonmed for deletion, as it would show as a fair use article not being used in an aricle. However, I'll work with you on fair use rationale's and we'll see what we can do.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: I know you said there was quotes that could be used from the review sections covering themes, would you be able to have a look at pulling some of them for me. Also where do you think we are with the article.Blethering Scot 23:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't happen to have a Sunday Times subscription do you? Just have a feeling this article will be useful.Blethering Scot 23:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regrettably, no. I think it's fairly close to GA. I'll look at separating out the themes sentences for you next day or so.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Wehwalt:. Would you be ok if i go ahead and nominate this, preferably co-nominate given how much work you have done as well. Just going to be ramping down my editing in a few weeks for a short whilst and want to get this done prior to that.Blethering Scot 20:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free. I'll give it another run through when I have a chance but I am also winding down in preparation to some time away (from home, I'll still be online).--Wehwalt (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thats it done.[2] If you get a chance then i would appreciate you taking that run through of the article and again thanks for all your help.Blethering Scot 20:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

Should this page not be re-named From Here to Eternity - The Musical? That's how they refer to it themselves 128.151.71.16 (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:From Here to Eternity the Musical/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zanimum (talk · contribs) 16:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this on. -- Zanimum (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC) Synopsis[reply]

Passing synopsis. It could be longer, without harm, but I do appreciate the brevity. (Another GAN I'm reviewing takes one character in a 90-minute movie, and gives me about a thousand words of plot.) The only thing you should consider in the long run is the referencing. It is a little oddball, in that every reference is only used once. Only the Daily Express mentions Lorene? Only Broadway World mentions insubordination? If you could double up references a couple times, that would help strengthen things.
In articles i create i like to individually reference as much as possible, some may over lap others but i feel this adds to the feeling an article is better sourced, and ultimately helps when expanding an article. I Certainly could double up where refs agree but i wouldn't want to remove any references as a result.Blethering Scot 20:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly wasn't suggesting stripping references away, just showing that multiple articles mention the same plot points. It's not a big deal to me, one way or another. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • Was Charles Scribner and Sons commonly abbreviated to just Scribner?
The BBC refer to as Scribner, as does the NY Times. Im not adverse to including the full name if this aids understanding. Blethering Scot 19:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's good. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Academy Awards, not Academy Award's.
√ Fixed.Blethering Scot 19:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "some no longer fitted" I think you could get away with just "fit"
Is Fitted not better past tense than fit is.Blethering Scot 20:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two of three references in one sentence are to [26] The Daily Telegraph, so really, you only need the second reference.
√ Fixed.Blethering Scot 20:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rice quote needs to be fixed, as I dearly hope the lyricist doesn't refer to himself as "i" (lowercase).
√ Fixed.Blethering Scot 19:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kaylie Jones' quote should really have a comma between scenes and because.
√ Fixed.Blethering Scot 19:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the sentence about Jones granting rights on the condition the original book was used should be presented earlier, perhaps even the second sentence in this paragraph. It relates more to the earlier discussion than the later.
√ Fixed.Blethering Scot 20:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The uncensored version of the novel was released in May 2011." In my mind, this sounds like an actual hardcover release, but one of the other articles you reference refers to it as an ebook. Was it just digital distribution?
You can certainly purchase as an ebook or a physical edition now. Ive looked and the ebook was definitely released in May 2011, by Open Road, although there also appears to be a bound version of the same text by this publisher. Penguin released a new physical copy and ebook in 2013. The penguin bound copy is what the theatre sell. Sources do seem to initially say ebook. Ive changed to "The uncensored version of the novel was released in May 2011, initially as an ebook." Is that more confusing or less so?Blethering Scot 19:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, leave the article as is there. I was essentially meaning if it was only an ebook, then it was treated as less of a monumental "hey, look at the real story" than if they invested in a print run. Which they did, so that's good.

Themes

  • Recommend for 13+, or no one under 13 will be admitted by the theatre?
Musical's are recommended not restricted, anyone can attend but they advise against it. Your not the only one commenting on that, someone changed it recently and was changed back.Blethering Scot 19:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good, existing wording is correct then. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Production history

  • The sentence about the advisory was hard to read. Perhaps "Former US Marine Ray Elliott, also head of a James Jones literary society, was hired to ensure an accurate picture of military life for the era."
√ Fixed. Blethering Scot 22:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both ref 47 and ref 48 include "West End Live". Why not place both after the date? At various points, the article seems overly fragmented. Anything more than one interruption of a sentence for references gets distracting for casual readers.
√ Fixed I Prefer as a matter of practice to reference as many points individually as possible, however i concede this may not be helpful here.Blethering Scot 19:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wiki is not paper, we should go with "two hours and 50 minutes", not "2hrs 50mins".
I agree with this.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
√ Fixed. Blethering Scot 16:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are intermissions called intervals in Britain? I've never heard that word used in this context before.
An intermission is called an interval in the UK.Blethering Scot 19:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest piping to entr'acte. I was asked to comment by Blethering Scot on my talk, as I've been involved in the past in this article.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
√ Fixed. Blethering Scot 16:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Piping works beautiful, thank you both. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The [[Military Wives]] should be [[Military Wives|The Military Wives]]
√ Fixed.Blethering Scot 19:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Passing Music.

Critical reception

  • Passing what's there.
  • Are there any reviews by critics outside of the UK? Toronto Star's Richard Ouzianian [sp?] often does trans-Atlantic reviews, and the Wall Street Journal article you cite early in the article sounds like it might be a review (I'm reviewing your article offline, so I can't click through.)
Yes there is the Wall Street Journal one included in the article, although its before opening night and doesn't add too much not included. The only one i can find that adds something is this Bloomberg one which talks about the set. @Wehwalt: is better at that kind of thing, although its probably worth including.Blethering Scot 20:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for the due diligence in scoping this out, we can safely pass on including foreign reviews then. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Passing Awards and nominations, Notes.

References

  • Why is Ref 31 bolded?
Im unsure of the reason for this, in this edit by Wehwalt he states per mos.Blethering Scot 20:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
√ Fixed, was actually just a stray ' .Blethering Scot 22:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Passing External links.

Incidentally, that's quite the extensive reviewing/collaboration process on the talk page, especially considering it was spontaneous, rather than in a process like GAN or peer review. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

I will work my way through the comments and reply. Also pinging @Wehwalt: who has contributed as much as me if not more.Blethering Scot 19:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to the majority of these now. Ive left the two in the production history as would like another opinion from Wehwalt, and I'm unsure of the bold reason as was cited per mos, unsure if a mistake or not.Blethering Scot 20:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Zanimum: I have now replied to all comments bar the bolding issue, awaiting further comments from reviewer.Blethering Scot 22:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually was just a stray ' , all done and ready to continue.Blethering Scot 22:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both, I don't believe there is anything else remaining, except to promote! -- Zanimum (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, this is only the 37th GA for "Theatre, musical theatre, dance and opera", which is astonishing when you think about it. Particular kudos for choosing an under represented subject to work on. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on From Here to Eternity the Musical. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on From Here to Eternity the Musical. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:From_Here_to_Eternity_(musical)&oldid=1202157674"