Template:Did you know nominations/Gilbert & Sullivan Opera Company

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  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Gilbert & Sullivan Opera Company[edit]

(
)

Created by Ssilvers (talk). Nominated by Pgallert (talk) at 14:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC).

  1. The article is new; it was created within five days
  2. It meets the requirements of length
  3. It is neutral. There are no paraphrasing issues, and all the direct quotes are appropriately referenced. Most of the references are fine; see below.
  • Problem: The hook is not properly referenced. There are two references, of which one does not work and the other does not provide the information given in the hook.
  • Suggestion: Change the hook, as it is not news (having happened 5 years ago), and it is also not very exciting.

Amandajm (talk) 03:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

How about this:

See footnote 16. BTW, I repaired footnote 19, so it works now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Ready to go. Well written, appropriately referenced. Amandajm (talk) 07:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I have several concerns about this articles quotations from reviews:
  • Instead of incorporating expressions of opinion (like "thoroughly enjoyed [the company's] spirited production" and "we were assured of an excellent evening’s entertainment") in the "History and Description" section of the article, it is good practice to create a separate section called "Reception". Many Wikipedia articles about theatre and cinema provide good examples of such sections.
I created a separate Reception section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The article makes excessive use of direct quotations from published reviews. These are copyrighted sources. There is seldom any good reason to quote entire multi-sentence passages from a review. Instead, it should be possible to be selective in finding shorter snippets to quote.
I shortened the quotes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The second footnote citation associated with the long quotation from Raymond Walker is incorrect. The second footnote points to a completely different review by a different person. If you want to say something about the second review in the article, quote or paraphrase that second review -- don't append a "see also" note to a quotation from another reviewer. --Orlady (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I fixed this. Thanks for the comments! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Ssilvers. Taking the above reviews by Amandajm on trust, and having checked out the corrections by Ssilvers, I see one issue remaining. Unless you move all the praising-review quotes from the History and Expansion sections into the Reception section, this article will continue to look (at least in part) like an advertising promotion. If you would kindly fix this issue, this nom should be OK. --Storye book (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

[left] Thank you, Ssilvers. Much appreciated. To add to the reviews by Amandajm above, the QPQ is done, and ALT1 checks out online with citation #28. The original hook checks out online with citation #14 for performing at the festival each year, and online citation #26 for touring. I have removed the inverted commas from the orchestra name in the article, and corrected the image size and rationale for the poster image, to match the image licence. (Sorry I cannot do any more adjustments without compromising the independence of my review.) There are two more very minor issues which I had missed previously: (1) "well-known" may count as a weasel word in that context (because it's like "popular" or "famous"); it should be acceptable to replace it with something like "specialist". (2) "or David Steadman often music direct the company" doesn't make sense. Thank you for your patience. --Storye book (talk) 10:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

  • (1) I have removed "well-known". (2) The sentence says "John Owen Edwards, David Russell Hulme or David Steadman often music direct the company", which should be acceptable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Ssilvers. Issue 1 is now resolved, and I have struck it. There is no verb to "music direct" in Standard English, but people can be musical directors - so you could say "blah often act as musical directors for the company" or similar. Hope that helps, and thanks again for your patience. --Storye book (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Ssilvers. Good to go with original hook or ALT1 (at last!). --Storye book (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Gilbert_%26_Sullivan_Opera_Company&oldid=614994728"