Jump to content

Talk:Love, Loss, and What I Wore/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 04:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: two found and tagged with dab needed as I was not sure of the intended target.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 04:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fixed--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Substantive review within 48 hours. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    The play was then scheduled for 3 back-to-back 4-week runs with rotating 5 person casts beginning September 21, 2009. looks like a maths exercise. Can you rephrase this in a better prose style?
    addressed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    One notes: "Sometimes I buy something that isn’t black, and I put it on and I am so sorry" What is this about? Seems completely unnecessary here.
    Removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Readded in a new section by co-editor.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The Geffen Playhouse run was initially scheduled to play from May 12, 2010 to November 19, 2010, but it has been extended to July 4, 2011. This is now dated information.
    Updated.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Beckerman's memoir takes as its departure the clothing worn at pivotal times of her life (and by O'Donnell and the author's other friends) and serves as the foundation for the show. Who is O'Donnell? The actor? Why is this in a plot description?
    The plot is based on happenings from various subjects including O'Donnell apparently.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally composed of comic stories, the show often addresses sad or sentimental issues. sloppy and confused, is this meant to be singular or plural.
    As I look at the sentence I see "Generally composed of comic stories" properly modifying "the show" to say that the show is generally composed of comic stories. The rest of the sentence " the show often addresses sad or sentimental issues" seems to be grammatical and proper. I don't understand your point regarding singular or plural.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is the word "generally". Does this mean "mostly" or something else? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole of the plot section seems badly organised and sloppily written. Try and rewrite as a cohesive whole, rather than a collection of dis-connected sentences.
    I have tried to reorganize the content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Critical reaction. A poor mixture of tenses. Best to keep reviews in the past tense.
    I think I fixed that.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the highlights of the original production was the O'Donnell portrayal of the role of the purse. needs direct attribution of the source.
    Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In Bloomberg News, the critics commented that the playwrights were "literary alchemists expert at mixing the sentimental and the satirical and turning out something poignant" and noted that the female roles dominated in a performance where "The men are extras." Suggests that there are men in the cast. Those referred to are in the audience.
    I am not clear on this point and don't know what to make of the source.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Upon further review, I would like a second opinion as to whether the source means that clothing and accessories are as important to women's memories as men.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, feel free to ask some one else, but I am crystal clear that The men are extras. They can’t hold a candle to the memories of clothing every woman watching conjured instantly in her head and, nodding, seemed to say, “Got that right.” means that the men in audience were extras. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    ''No Tony Awards, Outer Critics Circle Awards or Theatre World Awards recognition. no need to mention things that didn't happen.
    Removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The lead hardly attempts to summarise the article.
    I have expanded and can expand further.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Overall not very well written, the various sections read like a collection of sentences thrown together without any style. Better, but the History section jumps about chronologically - in the fourth paragraph we jump back to the early productions.
    The show's monologues are sourced largely from Beckerman's bestselling 1995 book and recollections of friends, including O'Donnell. Needs to make clear that the "friends" are friends of the playwrights - not the author of the book.
    In addition the revised lead: The original Off-Broadway production and its cast were recognized critically. In addition the show, which had a rotating cast, was recognized for excellence in casting. Rather poor. What does "recognized critically" mean? Please clarify. Again, "recognized for excellence in casting."?
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    ref #7 The statement supported is a close paraphrase of the source
    issue resolved.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact many of the statements supported by the reviews appear to be copyvios or close paraphrases, especially the clothing lists.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    I'm not really sure and can't decide until the whole is rewriiten as above.
    There is no discussion about how the play adapts and dramatizes its source material (no discussion of the source material at all, really).
    It excerpted a book and put it on stage.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There should be some info about the playwrights and how this work fits into their body of works. There is little discussion of the genesis of the play - why was it written?
    Not addressed. I think that there may be useful information in the acting edition which you should be able to get at a library. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not like Edward Scissorhands (dance), where every critic is talking about other specific works by the visionary of this work. We are here to summarize the sources and not fit the article into a formula.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    But you can look harder for sources. We certainly could do with a paragraph on the source book. I found an on-line reference here.[2]
    How did it evolve from conception to first production?
    How was the production team chosen?
    These questions too, could be answered by looking harder for sources. There should also be a little detail about the playwrights and their previous plays. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nary a one of them is notable, AFAIK. Thus, tales regaling their composition are not prevalent or even existent in RS to my knowledge. If any of these people were notable, I might be able to compile such stories. If you could point me to any google search that might yield prominent results to answer this question, I would better understand your concern.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nora Ephron wrote Imaginary Friends (play), and both Ephrons have written notable screenplays. In any event there needs to be a background section describing the playwrights' experience and how the play came to be conceived and prepared for the first benefit. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There should be more separation in the description of the various productions:
    Was the cast the same at Geffen as in NY? Overlapping?
    Somewhat overlapping cast. I have presented the Geffen cast.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Were changes made in the script?
    Neither the reviews of the LA production, nor reviews of the international production present script changes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Are any notable actresses slated for the National tour cast?
    Thanks for reminding me.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    How are directors chosen for all the foreign productions?
    Not necessary.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The Plot (synopsis) section is based on reviews, but it should be based on the script itself.
    No. WP is a summary of secondary sources. In cases where the vast majority of the plot is outlined in secondary sources, the script should be used to iron out the wrinkles, but for the type of performance where the plot is not outlined in RS, the script should not be used as the sole basis for the plot, IMO. This is not the type of theatrical experience where a chronological plot is important based on inferences from the secondary sources.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, sorry, that is not right. See Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary. The primary source can and should be used in writing plot summaries. I think that you will see that the plot summary of Hamlet and most other FA and GA-class plays is based on the play's script. This article shows why this is absolutely essential, as the plot summary is both inadequate and contains lots of stuff that is not "plot". -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Although on occasion I pay busfare to look up stuff downtown at the main Chicago Public Library, I never pay for anything for wikipedia. I donate my time. WRT, Hamlet, ROTFLOL. No this play will not match up to any Shakespearean work, not even his 25th most popular play. This is an Off-Broadway work. Like I said, you have to calibrate expectations based on what is in the RS. The RS don't feel the plot is fit to print. I will summarize the RS and that is what WP will have unless someone wants to find it. This article is like my Jordan Kovacs GA above. Most college athlete GA recount high school accomplishments. However, in his case we are dealing with a walkon with no DI offers. That is sort of what a Unique Theatrical experience winner is compared to the average subject of GACs. He probably did stuff in high school that could be uncovered. The breadth requirement must be calibrated.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The reviews, interviews, etc. should be used to create an "analysis" section about the themes discussed in the play.
    I have co-authored a lot of GAC and you are the first co-author who put up roadblocks to one. This seems to be the type of change you could handle if you wanted to help the project.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow! That is so unfair. You asked me some time ago to review this article and see if I could help. I did so - I did not "co-author" this article, I just tried to move the article forward, at your request, even though it is not anywhere on my to do list. I think it is unfair to the project for someone to nominate an article for GA when they are so patently unready - for example when the nominator has not even obtained the script. Please read the reviewer's comments below and try not to be defensive. I would again urge you to withdraw your other other play nominations from GA consideration. They are patently not ready. Be patient and bring them up through c-class to B-class first. Get the scripts to use to summarize the plot in your own words. Write analysis sections using the reviews and interviews. Then consider whether they are ready. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I do concede that Christine Jorgensen Reveals is not ready.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. I use the term co-author broadly, but your efforts helped me a great deal. Anyways the point is that I have been at this a long time and the article was within a decent cleanup effort of GA. I still think it is pretty close. I have just never had a person who I felt could help me get an article over a GA hump put forth an objection like yours. Co-author, article-mover, whatever you want to call it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The plot should be a chronological description of the events in the script.
    We can't do that with the WP:RS. Also, this is a few dozen compartmentalized stories and not one continuous one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The critical reception section also needs to be expanded and to address more of the productions. Which ones were the most successful?
    I have added a sentence to clarify that the critical awards were for the original Off-Broadway production.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I urge the nominator to look at some FA and GA level plays before nominating more plays for GA. I think this article has a long way to go to even reach B-class. -- Ssilvers (talk)
    If you could point me to some off-Broadway GA and FA work. This play is far less well-known than say the Off-B The Vagina Monologues so it probably should have a less extensive article. I think that would pass GA. I don't see any off-Broadway works at Wikipedia:Good_articles/Arts#Theatre, musical theatre and opera. Others might be at Wikipedia:Good_articles/Language_and_literature#Literature and I did not look through it. I don't know what I am suppose to use as a model.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at the statistics section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Theatre/Assessment, which shows all the GA and FA-class articles for plays. But, the first thing to do in this case is to get the script. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I see four plays other than my own Pill Hill (play) at GA. Two have highly developed plots and two don't. See Irene_(play)#Play and Love_in_Several_Masques#Plot. This article is at that level or in the neighborhood in terms of plot content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that you just don't what a broad article about a play should be like, Tony. Have you seen the play? Have you read the acting script? (it is available on Amazon for only 8 dollars[3]). Have you read the original book? You would need to start there to be able to tell which stories were sourced from the book, although of course you would need to find someone else who says that. You appear to be trying to structure an article on a handful of newspaper reviews, found on an internet search. That really is not good enough when you are trying to write about theatre. You don't even mention the director. Take a look at some of the Theatre project GA and B class articles to see what you should be aiming at. Can you sort all of that out in seven days - or should I just not list at this time until you are ready to present a good article? Jezhotwells (talk) 07:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to "I think that you just don't [know] what a broad article about a play should be like, Tony.". First of all, I have written a GA for the Theatre project, (Pill Hill (play)), and secondly, I am pretty familiar with the GA process. Within a given topic, the GA standards are different depending upon the extent to which the subject is written about in WP:RS. Take two American football players like say Jordan Kovacs and Tai Streets. Both are credible GAs. Q: Why doesn't Kovacs have an extensive litany of detail about his high school career? A: Because no major newspapers wrote about it. WP is a summary of secondary sources. Streets played high school in Chicago and had extensive coverage in one of the nation's foremost newspapers. Let's look at another subject. Take two politicians like Sandi Jackson and Jack Kemp. Let's examine what we know about their lives before elective politics. Q: Why don't we have the same amount of detail for Jackson? A: Because it is not available in the WP:RSs that we use to review the topic. When you have a subject that is covered by both the New York Times and Los Angeles Times, what is relevant to the reader is a summary of what those and other accessible sources say. For that same subject, if the NYT and LAT decided it was not important for that subject, then we are suppose to consider whether that topic is relevant to the reader. In terms of notability, this play is very low compared to most GA subject matter. Thus, we need to calibrate the expected level of detail based on what the secondary sources consider to be worth printing.
    In response to your questions "Have you seen the play? Have you read the acting script?" The test of whether a GA is broad is not based on what you remember which I am sure you understand is WP:OR. It is whether it is broad based on the secondary sources. The test is whether a NYT or LAT reader would look at the WP article and say "You left out a whole lot of important information". I did not buy the script or see a performance for my prior theatre GA. I summarized the plot based on what reliable sources felt was essential detail for the subject matter. The summary of this play is not about the chronology of the plot. The substantive encyclopedic content just needs to describe that this play is about wardrobes and relationships, IMO.
    That being said, I am very willing to address concerns that relate to omissions of summaries of the RS. If there are substantive element of the plot that the NYT and/or LAT see as fit to print that I omitted, I am willing to address them. Omission of details that they did not find fit to print does not seem like a problem I should be addressing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. note that both of the directors are mentioned more extensively than the NYT saw fit to print.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have put the director's name in three additional places, but there is no biographical or professional content about her in reliable sources.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    It seems that the portions of reviews cited focus on the positive, although most seem to recognise this piece as lightweight fluff.
    Not sure what you are looking for, but I have expanded the review section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    "Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other"Wikipedia:Mos#Images
    rearranged.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Still sandwiching the text between the infobox and the combined image. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Are these images used appropriately. What do they do to add to the text of the article or illustrate facets that could not be done textually?
    I have augmented the WP:CAPTIONs so that the relevance is clear.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not what i meant. Why do we need two photographs of actors, which were taken before the play's production.
    It is pretty common practice to include pictures of actors in articles about plays and movies, especially if the images are within a year or two of the work, AFAIK.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also added two images.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The pictures of the theatres in LA & Sydney add nothing to the plot section or the article as a whole. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have rearranged.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    While I have your attention, do you like the infobox image or should I use a plain version like http://www.geffenplayhouse.com/more_info.php?show_id=3.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The poster is fine, but needs a caption. Might be better to use the original poster, rather than something from ticketmaster. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have swapped in File:LLaWIW-original.jpg for File:Love, Loss and What I Wore.jpg. However, I am thinking of reverting because of the low quality of the image.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reverted to the national tour artwork.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    A lot to address. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summing up

[edit]

As it stands, I do not believe that this article meets the GA criteria. As pointed out above, details of how the play was developed and why it came about are missing. These may well be available, either in the published playscript or in interviews with the playwrights. The use of photographs of venues in LA and Sydney appears to be unnecessary as these do not add any useful information to the article. The playscript may well contain information on the character list, which appears to be conspicuously missing. The plot section could be further served by reading the script, rather than the present synthesis of a variety of reviews which on-line sources may not fully cover the plot. Relying solely on newspaper reviews is not what writing encyclopaedic articles is about. The prose is still lacking. How does "Daly originated the role in New York production. Kane played the role when it debuted in Los Angeles." fit in the plot section? "The Ephron's weaved together a collection of derivatives from the book with recollections of friends, including O'Donnell." Wrong use of apostrophe. "Her life is represented beginning with experiences in a Brownies dress and extending through her full life" Poor prose "life" - "life". These are just examples.

CBS interviews at [4] and [5] may provide useful background. There must have been a lot of other promotional interviews. In view of my misgivings, I shall not be listing this artcile at this time. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Love,_Loss,_and_What_I_Wore/GA1&oldid=444490202"