Talk:Edward Scissorhands (dance)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: My76Strat (talk) 05:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opening statement

Over the coming days I will review this nomination against Wikipedia's good article criteria. All interested participants are invited to provide their constructive input. Please comment under specific bullets if your comment relates, or initiate a comment in the appropriate section so it too can be considered.

Please ~~strike~~ concerns as you feel that they have been resolved.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Initial read

By my initial read, I do find the article well written. I am optimistic that this review can conclude with the article being assessed to "GA" class. To the extent I believe improvements should be considered, I will provide specific examples in the comments section. I generally do not edit an article I review for "GA", until after the close, unless asked. If you prefer, simply make a good faith correction. If you rather, rebut any suggestion with valid mitigation. My76Strat (talk) 06:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to edit the article. I need all the help I can get.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do consider myself free to edit the article. It is more of a personal protocol that I do not, rather allowing the contributors to decide if a suggestion is appropriate. I would of certainty correct an issue that was directly related to a violation. My76Strat (talk) 20:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments initiated by reviewer

The following sentence, "Sam Archer and Richard Winsor alternated in the main role,[18][6][16] wearing ...", shows citations out of order. My76Strat (talk) 06:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also consider "only scissors for hands."[11][5] The dance version is set in the 1950s, unlike the 1990 film, which was set in the late 1980s.[6][1]". My76Strat (talk) 06:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are bots that run around fixing that issue. I don't usually worry about it. Fixed them though.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fixed My76Strat (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Many times a bot must be dispatched to check a particular article. You will notice a recent edit where I dispatched citation bot to this article. You must activate citation expander within your preferences under gadgets and the additional tool will be listed under your toolbox at left. In case you are interested. My76Strat (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the following sentence, "... has toured extensively since then in Britain, Asia, the U.S. ...", 'extensively' is not supported in the body, and would require a specific citation to show published opinion that it was extensive. My76Strat (talk) 06:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fixed My76Strat (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs a thorough copy edit for its use of commas and serial commas. Specific examples will follow, but to shorten that list, I'll scrutinize it closer, after the copy edit. My76Strat (talk) 06:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think serial commas are consistent now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The copy edit has satisfied my original concerns. Fixed - My76Strat (talk) 22:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following two links, 'Electrocution' and 'Fox Theatre', require disambiguation. My76Strat (talk) 07:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- dabbed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fixed My76Strat (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image of Matthew Bourne in the 'Composition and development' section is bunching into the 'Plot' section on my browser, as configured. My76Strat (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I viewed that as the lesser of two evils vs. bunching with the infobox by moving it up. Not sure where else it really would make sense to put it down below. Suggestions welcome.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The {{clear}} template could be the simplest solution. My76Strat (talk) 10:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fixed My76Strat (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence, "The work was developed as dance theatre instead of as a musical ..." indicates the adaptation is something other than a musical. It is categorized within five musical categories however, and this gives pause for ambiguity. Perhaps "The work was developed as dance theatre instead of as a traditional musical ..." is a better fit. My76Strat (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think removing the musical categories would be O.K. if there were dance theatre categories. Furthermore, since there is no dance theatre article, the reader would be a bit lost. I think dance theatre of this form is a subset of musicals. In this case, there is no spoken word—just music and dance.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that this is a subset of musicals. This is why I felt identifying it as nontraditional would reconcile the statement with its inclusion in the categories. My76Strat (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Used traditional.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no clear indication in the prose that this is a ballet. Additionally there is no clear indication that Matthew Bourne choreographed the dance elements, if he did. My76Strat (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not a ballet. It is dance theatre.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here again, why should it be in the category for 2005 ballet premieres? My76Strat (talk) 07:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Cat removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- It says "The work received a nomination for the 2007 Drama Desk Award for Outstanding Choreography (for Bourne)"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes it does, my bad. My76Strat (talk) 07:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I also added a small note much earlier in the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because this article has a section called 'Productions', each time the word 'production' appears in the prose it is subconsciously presumed to relate to that section. There are times when I believe the generic use of production should be replaced with a variety of other terms which can also add information. For example, as it relates to my earlier comment regarding ballet, perhaps at some point simply replacing 'the production' with 'the ballet' would satisfy both elements simultaneously. Other suggestions to consider in lieu of 'the production' 'The dance adaptation', 'the presentation', 'the show', or others in similar vein. My76Strat (talk) 20:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Adjusted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image, 'Finsbury sadlers wells 1.jpg' is missing information related to the source. Please update the file at commons. Based on the date and author attribution, I believe Flicker is the source. My76Strat (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- different source. Note the human subject in the picture. Don't know how to fix it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good observation, unfortunately it leads me to wonder if this is the source? If so, the image carries a copyright, and it would probably be best to switch to the flicker image which is licensed to share alike. I will ask for guidance to these regards. My76Strat (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Given the other image by the author on Flickr which is licensed, I think the one on commons was taken within a few seconds and he posted one to commons and one to flickr. Since he says on his commons page that all his images are supposed to be share alike, I think we are O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree and have inquired of a commons admin who concurs. No change is necessary, but if a flap ever ensues, remember the flicker image which has all attributions intact. My76Strat (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments initiated by article contributors

I have been notified of the ongoing discussion. I will presume that I have 7 days to respond to any commentary. Tomorrow is a travel day for a speech I am giving in Washington, DC as a wikipedian in conjunction with the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial dedication ceremony. My time on WP will be limited for the next few days and this is one issue where I think my feedback is less pressing. I may not respond to most issues for several days.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is fine, you have at least seven days from the time I otherwise put the review on hold. I will be maintaining it open for the next few days anyway, and because you have told me of your other obligations, I will ensure you are not rushed by this review. So take your time, and don't be distracted by this. I hope your presentation goes well! Thanks for commenting to these regards. My76Strat (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The dedication is postponed due to Hurricane Irene. I will spend some time with your comments.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments initiated by interested observers

Preliminary findings

I find this article meets the criteria for assessment to "GA" class. I will leave this review open for a short period while I formulate a final disposition. Absent any mitigation of consequence, I intend to soon close this review as successful. My76Strat (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I have found

Edward Scissorhands (dance) is a good article because—

It is Well-written to wit:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

It is Verifiable with no original research. It has been reviewed, and found compliant to the following standards:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);^[2] and

(c) it contains no original research.

The article is Broad in its coverage and has shown that:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

It is Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
The article is Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute and it does:

^[4]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio, and the specific examples within the article have shown:

^[5]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Well done

My76Strat

talk

23:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

[reply]

Footnotes

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.

[2] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]