Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Me and Juliet/archive1

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain 04:14, 14 March 2011 [1].

Me and Juliet[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. My final attempt in the Musical Theatre/Light Opera area is about this one. The musical was an utter flop, though reading it, it probably deserved better. Whatever. Back to coins, Nixon and Canadian politics after this.Wehwalt (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments:

  • No citations to Hammerstein's The Hammersteins: A Musical Theatre Family that I can see. Should be listed as Further reading (or omitted)
  • Ref 12 is a subcription source, needs noting. This is also true of 29, 33 and 35.
  • Ref 28: there are no references in the source page as displayed to Maclaine or Jones. How do you get to the full article?
You have to click on "more" halfway down the page. The URL does not change. Shall I note that in the ref?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll leave it to you - I should have realised that. I'm not at my brightest at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise sources look good, spotchecks (such as were possible) OK. Brianboulton (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except as noted, those things are done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, looking forward.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: File:Me and Juliet 1953.jpg really isn't adding anything. Album covers are fine on articles about the album, but they're gonna need some special justification to be used elsewhere. J Milburn (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't the same point made at the FACs for Pipe Dream and Flower Drum Song, and views were that it was OK to have it as there was unlikely to be an article about the album?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was not involved in either of those discussions, but I can assure you that that is a long way from current practice generally. The use of non-free content in an article is not dependent on the existence or otherwise of another article- if the album is never likely to have its own article, then that's fine, but that doesn't suddenly mean that the album cover can be used in some other article. J Milburn (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to chime in and agree with J Milburn; missing the album cover does not significantly impact reader understanding as the release is not a major aspect and the subject of critical commentary; as the article for the album does not exist you also can't defend it as an identification piece. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, I've deleted it. I have purchased on eBay a playbill for Me and Juliet, many free handouts and publications from the 1950s were published without copyright notice and are now in the public domain. When it arrives, I will look through it and with luck there will be none. Until then, we will have to work with just two images. Maybe I'll put one up of the theatre or something, a modern musical which was not based on an earlier work can be a real pain on the image side. Thank you for your comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - 2 dabs (Billy Hayes, Some Enchanted Evening); 0 dead external links. 1 external redirect which may lead to link rot; see it with the tool in the upper right of this page. --PresN 01:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly, the toolbox is not appearing in this nom, but that's not a big deal. Issues fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • I've left some inline comments in the text hidden in <!-- --> tags.
    • I think it might be clearer to follow film layouts in placing the plot before the production information, so that readers understand the framework of the story and mentions of cast members, etc., make more sense.
    • The biggest issue I had reading this is that the musical is described as "in profit" and having made returns, but these descriptors are not elaborated on. Elsewhere the article says it received mixed to positive reviews, but presents some contradictory information on that score. Finally, it is described as a failure, but no benchmarks are given for that estimation (by the prose, I reckon it to be not a smashing success, but hardly a flop.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was a failure for R&H, who had raised the bar for themselves. I'll see what I can do with it. No source that I know of gives specific dollar figures for the profit, but that is unsurprising as the only "investors" were R&H and RCA. I'll play with the language and look at your comments. BTW, I said the play got neutral to unfavorable reviews, not mixed to positive. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article only calls the show a failure once, and I should have made it clearer, that is Abbott's perspective. I've cleared that up now. The lede refers to the show as unsuccessful, which I think is indisputable. As to how one measures success? This show did nothing to enhance their professional reputations. If it wasn't a hit, or close to it, it was "What has happened to R&H?" It was much the same with Pipe Dream and Allegro. Only Pipe Dream actually lost money, but they damaged the pair's reputation (today almost blissfully forgotten) and of course, this affected potential investors (although not much), performers and creative help considering offers from them, etc. It was not going to be South Pacific every time.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. If it's possible to pull in more of that context, that would be helpful (I know of Rodgers & Hammerstein, but I think most readers my generation don't give two wits about musicals anyhow, so you need to provide readers with more of a sense of why it was disappointing then.) Sorry for the mixup, I think I accidentally erased your edits when adding some of my own. This issue is these two sentences: "According to Steven Sondheim, a protégé of Hammerstein, "Oscar was able to keep the partnership together by taking Dick's suggestion, which he did not want to take."[4] As the two discussed the matter...", where "Dick's suggestion" and "the matter" have to be clarified. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, taken care of and also your hidden comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The infobox is naff, but that's probably because the image got yanked (see above).
  • I stumbled (flow of reading was disrupted) over the term "light bridge" in the lead. Maybe some link or explication is needed? I stumbled on the term "tryout" as well, but was able to work out from context and word-form what that meant. I suppose a light bridge is a bridge for the lighting, but unlike the "wings" (off to either side), I'm unsure as to where a light bridge is located in a theatre.
  • In the sentence: "The entire action of Me and Juliet takes place in and close to a Broadway theatre in which the successful long-running musical Me and Juliet is playing", I can see that the circular self-reference is one of the points, but technically the first Me and Juliet in that sentence is the musical the audience is watching, and the second one is a fictional musical-within-a-musical (of the same name). Should there not be some mention that the fictional musical has the same name as the real-life musical? In the synopsis you use the phrase "internal show" - maybe use that in this sentence as well?
  • The synopsis has the timing of musical numbers included - it is not immediately clear that is what these bits in brackets are, unless you are used to reading summaries of musicals.
  • The start of the Inception section is a bit abrupt. Maybe segue in from the plot summary with something like: "The origins of Me and Juliet can be traced back a decade earlier to the period following Oklahoma!, R&H's first musical, in 1943.".
  • "from the dressing rooms to the flies" - I have no idea what "flies" is here.
  • The link to 'show-within-a-show' could come earlier, maybe even in the lead?
  • "According to author and composer Ethan Mordden" - this is confusing, as I thought initially you were talking about someone hired to work on the play and author the "play-within-a-play" but, but then I realised Mordden was born in 1949. Are you quoting him here more as a later critic or commentator? If so, maybe make clear that he is talking at a distance in time (in 1992), as opposed to the other authors and composers mentioned in the preceding sentence. Also, are you really quoting Mordden here? It sounds like you are quoting Mordden as he quotes someone else.
It seems to be Mordden himself, I googled phrases from that and he and us are the only ones that come up exactly.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From this, it seems to be Mordden imagining or reporting Hammerstein's thoughts. You seem to have cut off "Hammerstein thought" immediately before the quote you give, thus making the 'voice' Mordden's, rather than Hammerstein. Imagine which makes more sense, Hammerstein or Mordden saying "We shall imagine some rather advanced musical of the near future" - that comes across to me as a collective "we" referring to those creating, writing and producing the show. Carcharoth (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand, but I can't find anything by Hammerstein saying that. I will look though, perhaps Mordden paraphrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead seems a touch short.
  • Contemporary pictures of the actors would be nice (but possibly wishful thinking).

Other than that, the rest of the article reads really well, and I couldn't find any other faults with it. I particularly like the ending. It left me feeling that I'd finished the article on a strong note, rather than finishing abruptly or weakly. Carcharoth (talk) 04:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just bumping in on that, I love finishing an article with a blockquote, probably two thirds of my articles do that. There is just such a note of closure in closing with a well-written statement by a third party. The reader has had all he can take of the article-writer's perspective by the end of the article, there is a note of satisfaction by giving a second perspective in that fashion. It is a lot better than dropping off the end of the earth, as some articles seem to.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will respond in greater detail later in the day, as I have to go to work shortly. Most of them I'll just work through and just note that I've done them as a global note. A quick couple of things—one of the problems with working with musicals of this era is that there is likely to be a shortage of PD images. I have a Me and Juliet playbill coming I hope is PD/no notice, as many free publications were issued without copyright logo in the fifties and sixties. I know of no PD images of the major players. The placing of musical numbers in quotes and parens is the accepted practice for FA musical theatre articles, but to clear up confusion in one, I put a "Musical number:" in the first one and I'll do that here. Many thanks for the thoughtful review, I'll work on this this afternoon or tonight and report back.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've cleared up all your points. Thoughts? I've got the playbill, it is indeed PD/No Notice, and once I've worked on Nikkimaria's comments, I'll be uploading it and using it for the infobox image.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice pictures. All my comments addressed except one (see above). I also have some new comments, but will put those below. Carcharoth (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I have no idea whether Mordden is paraphrasing from something Hammerstein said (and I can't find anything close) or imagining that this is what Hammerstein might have said. And I don't have anything else good describing the show within the show. I can either cut the quote or not.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you not rephrase the intro sentence to something like: "According to author and composer Ethan Mordden in his book about the duo's works, Hammerstein thought the show-within-the-show was to be:". That would restore the missing context from the book you are quoting from. Carcharoth (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I've done that now.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. One final point, which I'll throw in here, is that some descriptions out there call this a musical a satire (some say "tongue-in-cheek satire"), as well as a comedy and romance. This article only calls it a comedy and a romance. Do reliable sources call it a satire? Carcharoth (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would say rarely, and usually well after the fact. I find the argument that they feared being considered satirical, thus they cut "You Never Had It So Good", more convincing. Rodgers, in his memoir (Hammerstein did not write a memoir), gives no hint of it. Possibly, they were gently mocking themselves, there are hints of that in the conflict between the (unseen) producer and choreographer about whether to hire a good looker or a good dancer as the new Carmen. I would call it a round of applause for "the little people" of a theatre. There are some nice photos of the production in Life magazine.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I went and looked at the LIFE images. You can link to a search for them here. I also found the NYT obituary of one of the people named in the playbill credits image (the only one you don't mention in the article): [2]. For the benefit of those closing this FAC, my support is down in the second set of comments I made. Carcharoth (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the conductor ... I usually link to him, but no one ever comments on him so I never have anything to say. I mean the real conductor, not Irving who played the role of the conductor, Dario.

Support - concerns adequately addressed. There are still a few instances where the tone sounds too informal to me, but I think that might just be my personal preference rather than an actionable issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC) Comments[reply]

I don't know where that came from, but it is gone now.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's some wording that seems a bit colloquial to me - for example, "scored another hit", "tells of romance"
  • "dismal reviews by critics" is not entirely compatible with "Critics' views were neutral to unfavorable"
  • Is "book" a musical theatre term, or was the show actually made into a book?
It is the former and I'll put in a pipe. It means the libretto, the dialogue and lyrics.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the girl he is minded to marry" - wording
  • "(the lead female dancing role)... (the lead male dancer)" - why the difference?
I felt that there were too many repeating phrases in that part of the article, and looked for things I could vary the wording a bit.
  • "with Jeanie standing in as Juliet—Lily has had to leave" - okay, but where's the first understudy?
Good question, but as Larry, who is not an understudy in any sense of the word, sings the duet with Jeanie (probably in place of Charlie), it's one of the weak plot points which probably irritated the critics.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who had just originated Sister Sarah Brown" - is "originated" the right word here?
Yes, that is how you refer to a person who has been the first performer in a role.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Chorus auditions began March 10, 1953, at the Majestic Theatre" - where is this?
  • Spell out "%"
  • Most of the articles and webpages have full bibliographic info in both References and Bibliography. Also, some note "fee for article" in only one of the two entries - please check. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since there are only a half dozen or so, I see no reason not to have the duplication. It saves wear and tear on the reader, and I find most shorthand references for newspaper articles less than satisfactory. If I didn't reply, I addressed it, and I think I've covered everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linking comments

Putting here the results of a check I tend to do (where possible) on "what links here". I say where possible, because for some articles with hundreds of links, it is not feasible. But here, even with the templates at the bottom introducing false hits, it was possible to review all the incoming and outgoing links for this article. The results (below) will hopefully be of use.

Shirley MacLaine and Shirley Jones are stars. Janet Pavek is Janet Pavek. Looking through my playbill, I find John M. King as playing the minor role of "Michael, a chorus boy" and also part of the singing ensemble (MacLaine is listed, I see nothing on Stuart or Pavek, but they might have left the show already). I think this falls under editorial judgment.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ii) Starlight Theatre (Kansas City). Allegedly a venue for a run of some kind in 1955 that is not mentioned in the article. If this can be confirmed, this raises the question of how comprehensive the current mentions of later performances are?
I don't contend that's every one ever given. I can't find anything except Kansas City offhand, but there were probably a small flurry of local performances when R&H released it for local productions, probably around 1955. I doubt they had elaborate stagings.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, though not all readers will know how this matter of "releasing for local productions" works. Carcharoth (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (iii) A Grand Night for Singing. This musical revue included several songs from this musical.
    (iv) Ella Sings Broadway; Ronnie Hilton. Two articles that describe or mention later recordings of "No Other Love", a song from this musical.
    On reflection, the newly added Como mention in relation to this song is enough. Carcharoth (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (v) State Fair (musical); Pipe Dream (musical). Both these articles mention the reuse of songs from, or cut from, this musical. Two feature in State Fair, while in Pipe Dream, both that musical and this one are grouped together with the sourced comment: "According to David Lewis in his history of the Broadway musical, "The Rodgers and Hammerstein office has, it would appear, given up on Pipe Dream and [Me and] Juliet ever finding an audience ... so these songs are up for grabs."[42]" Both points would seem worth repeating in this article.
Very well.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the material from Pipe Dreaming. I do not think that it is worth mentioning the use in A Grand Night for Singing which is a musical revue, without any plot, with selections from most or all of the R&H works in celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of Oklahoma!--Wehwalt (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I recall, the FDS article mentions the desperation of R&H after the back to back flops.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (vii) Barbara Carroll. Member of the jazz trio already mentioned in the article, though she is not specifically named.
I could certainly name them, that is no trouble at all.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are they named in the playbill credits? Carcharoth (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Hischak lists her by name as well, though not mentioning the other two. I'll toss in a mention of Carroll.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (viii) Beguine (dance). This is presumably the "Latin dance" already mentioned in the article as an influence on the musical.
My sources aren't that specific.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pity, but fair enough. I do wonder what other sources say. Carcharoth (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps you are taking an implication I did not intend to make. I have the best and current books about R&H. This seems to be a down time in books about them, but there was a nice little wave about a decade ago.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give that some thought, but do not think it should be a factor in this FAC. I've gotten leery about these things since a reviewer had me write an article to fill a redlink--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree it is not a factor. I may, if I have time, throw in some mentions. Carcharoth (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Misdirected link: Mark Dawson. This is a different Mark Dawson (born 1960).
Touche.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the last point, I didn't check every outgoing link, but seeing as there was one misdirected one there, it might be worth checking the other ones. Carcharoth (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do some clicking.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Only two remaining issues for me are No Other Love (1953 song) (people may be more familiar with this song than the musical, so I think it is worth bringing out some more detail of its subsequent success) and Barbara Carroll. Neither are deal breakers, but I'd be interested to see how you incorporate them, or reasons for not doing so. Carcharoth (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do the Carroll bit right now, and TCO has been kind enough to drop some suggestions on the other on my talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both are now mentioned in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - all outstanding concerns meet or discussed above, so am happy to support this. Carcharoth (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Major issue is that the plot description should be made easier to follow and more interesting. Will include my full comments on the talk page, since I can use sections then and since I've been requested to do such before.TCO (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledging your review, will deal with Carcharoth's first and get to yours later today. Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Re TCO above, I rather think the dullness may be in the plot itself, rather than in the plot description. I am reading the article and will leave a few comments here, but one thing struck me immediately. Why has the sequence of sections changed from that employed by your previous FA musicals (Pipe Dream, Allegro, Carousel etc), in which Inception and/or Background sections precede the plot summary? Brianboulton (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because I was asked to on this page, and I'm interesting in seeing how the experiment goes.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, are you fully committed to this new layout (which reads more like a tentaive suggestion than a request), or would you consider partial modification if not complete reversion? For myself, I think you need at least some background before sailing into the plot. The best sequence seems to me to be: why they wrote it → what they wrote → what the public thought of it → what became of it. This in my view applies to all staged works, and has to date been used for all featured opera and musical articles. Reversing the first two elements of the sequence sets the article at odds with the others and, I believe, weakens it. But I will read on, and see whether, when I have absorbed the whole article, my view has changed. Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Brian, since I'm the one who suggested the change I thought I should chime in. My areas of wiki-"expertise" are films and video games, which treat plots in different ways. In video games they introduce the goals and basic overview of the game first before presenting plot. In film articles, meanwhile, it's pretty much universal to put plot first. I asked in this case because the production section was referring to elements of the story, but I found them rather confusing without knowing what part of the story was referenced beforehand. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 01:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I agree with David, but in this particular case, I think it reads better to have the normal Wehwalt order (iow what Brian wants). The musical plot here is confusing with all the names and songs. And the content of the musical as a commercial entity is more the story here than the plot (for this play). I really think it will make things go down easier if we go back to the old way (in this case).TCO (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you're suggesting moving it back to after the sections about the preparations before opening night? @Brian, actually, while I favor putting the plot high in the article as I think we discussed regarding Tosca, I'm not carrying a torch for a particular position--Wehwalt (talk) 12:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I recall. Perhaps you are right. My problem here is that the change appears to have put through solely on the basis of another editor's mild suggestion. If it is to stay this way, I think there has to be some positive justification, i.e. why you think this sequence is better than the other. As you appear to be open-minded about this, in view of the strength of FA precedents in musical/opera FAs I would (equally mildly) suggest that you revert to the earlier order which, as I argue above, has a better logic behind it. But I am susceptible to any strong argument to the contrary. Brianboulton (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm starting to feel that anyone, including those well versed in musical theatre/opera, will need to read the plot first to have a good understanding of the work, which is not well known. Therefore, when I talk about a sandbag, it isn't going to mean much to anyone. Instead of being a showstopping moment at the end of the first act, a foreshadowing of the chandelier in Phantom and so forth. That do it?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, your reasoning lost me somewhere there. It's not clear to me what the rationale for the change is, and personally I think it weakens the article. It's way past my bedtime, so I'll leave it for the time being and look at it with fresh eyes in the morning. Perhaps I'll feel differently then. Brianboulton (talk) 01:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait for you to look at it again, then. My point is, that putting the plot first makes it possible to refer to the plot with the reader's understanding, a point particularly important as the plot is not well known. That being said, if you feel it weakens the article, I'll move it back down, TCO indicated that he feels it would be better off there and David indicated he does not feel strongly about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: Transfer the "Inception" section to before the plot summary and leave "Rehearsals and tryouts" where it is, BUT end Inception at "...more than 300 costumes which would be needed." The remaining sentences go to the start of Rehearsals and tryouts. I have tried this, and it seems to work perfectly well. This arrangement would resolve all my difficulties in this area, and would not affect your concern that readers need plot information before the nitty-gritty of rehearsals and tryouts. Give it a try; if after that, you are still convinced that the plot first stategy woks best, then OK, I'll accept it with whatever good grace I can muster.Brianboulton (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you not wishing to respond to this suggestion? Brianboulton (talk) 09:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I overlooked it. I'll do that.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a big improvemnt. A few prose niggles added below. Brianboulton (talk) 00:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, for the reviewers, I've dealt with all your points or else replied, of course it is possible that I missed something, if I did let me know.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. My major concern has been addressed. Good job. TCO (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support subject to resolution of a few prose points:-

  • Prose flow could be improved here: "Abbott made major changes in the plot. Hammerstein had only briefly described the show-within-the-show: Abbott hoped that some highlights would be furnished when it was fleshed out." Also, I'm not sure I wholly understand the last of these three statements
  • Avoid close repetition: "...was considered for the part of Larry, but lost out because he was considered..." In the next paragraph the word "audition" at the end of the first sentence is redundant.
  • "a glittering crowd"...It reads rather oddly. Do you mean they were diamond-encrusted or merely distinguished?
  • More odd phrasing: "The show was nominated for no Tony Awards". Not nominating should not be presented as a positive act; this should read "The show received no Tony Award nominations" or similar
  • "One source of Rodgers's excitement for the concept that became Me and Juliet was the opportunity to have a truly contemporary score, which might not be possible in an adaptation." Why might a contemporary score not be possible in an adaptation?
  • In the next sentence, try to avoid repetition of "score", say "...found its way into the music".

No other points: I did a sources review long, long ago. Brianboulton (talk) 00:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the support; I will implement these. On the show-within-a-show, Abbot hoped a rather dull show would be redeemed by a spectacular show-within-a-show, so that the internal show would be the star of the show and cause the show to draw rave reviews. On the crowd, I'll see if I can rephrase, although I think they were both distinguished (at least for Cleveland) and diamond-encrusted. An adaptation might be tied to a period and foreclose modern music: Imagine The King and I with a jazz score. Rodgers was always trying to keep up with the times, he did much the same thing in Flower Drum Song (and very notably failed to do successfully in his post-Hammerstein shows)--Wehwalt (talk) 02:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could "...might not be possible in an adaptation" become "..might not be appropriate in a period adaptation"? That would clarify. Brianboulton (talk) 10:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten it to avoid the question of adaptations; I think your proposed change, while valid, would push the text too far away from Mordden, and perhaps it is best to avoid that.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image check: good Rodgers and Hammerstein images good (used in another FA as well). The Playbill images are good as well; no visible copyright and produced in 1954. All images properly cited and terms listed.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:51, 8 March 2011 (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_candidates/Me_and_Juliet/archive1&oldid=1044080736"