Talk:Riverside Shakespeare Company

Theatre Low‑importance

	Theatre portal This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Shakespeare B‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shakespeare, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of William Shakespeare on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShakespeareWikipedia:WikiProject ShakespeareTemplate:WikiProject ShakespeareShakespeare articles
B	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Too many images

This article has way too many images. Most of them are not necessary, and make editing the page more difficult. Please cut back on the number of images on this page. I would suggest using no more than four. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article very difficult to read because of images

I gave up trying to read this article because of the excessive images, which make it very uninviting and hard to read. Right now it has 44 images. At least half of those should be deleted, and the other half should be greatly reduced in size. If someone thinks that bombarding the article with images is the way to interest readers in the subject matter, the reverse is actually true -- far too many images, most of which are far too great in size, and with far too lengthy captions, merely serve to scare potential readers away. Softlavender (talk) 06:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup done per above feedback

Per the above feedback, the article was quite difficult to read because of the number and size of images.

I've removed duplicate images and reduced the size of others, and moved placement on a few others. Now the article is more readable. It could probably do with more image trimming (a poster above recommended no more than four images), but I didn't have the hours to make those decisions -- someone else can.

To the editors who have created the bulk of the article: Please remember the following:

The purpose of a Wikipedia article is to impart information. If images clutter the article and make it nearly unreadable, the article fails in its purpose. Please see any number of Featured Articles on Wikipedia to learn proper use of images.

Images do not have to be large. All Wikipedia images are clickable to enlarge. Images placed in articles should be small, and not overwhelm or disrupt the text. Readers know they can click for a larger view.

Images should not obstruct subheadings.

Text should not snake around right- and left-hand images.

One image per play is more than sufficient. Do not post images of several productions. If you would like to post images of other productions on Wikipedia, do so at Wikimedia Commons, and/or see if you can post them on the main article for the particular play. (For instance, I notice that this has been done on the article for The Mandrake.)

Wikipedia is not a repository of images. If you would like to direct readers to more images from RSC, do so in the External Links -- post a link to an official website, or to your own website if it is appropriate to the subject.

Thanks all. It's good to have this nice article on RSC. Now that it's readable, hopefully more people will enjoy it. Cheers. Softlavender (talk) 06:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seems a bit odd to have such a long and detailed article for a theatre group that is gone. Is this level of detail warranted by its relative significance? Also there seems to be little light shed on why it died, esp. if it was so significant in its early years, why did it fold? To new reader it looks like a "vanity project", done by someone involved, which is good in that they have all of this material, but their level of objectivity may be undercut by their evident passion for the place. (just theorizing)--Mdukas (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As often happens when an article is written by someone closely involved with the subject (as is the case here), there is a loss of perspective as to what belongs in the article and what doesn't. I agree that the article goes into excessive detail which makes it very difficult to read or follow. Complete credits for every production are not relevant in a Wikipedia article on a theatre company, nor are complete cast lists for every production. What would be relevant is main stars (no more than four I'd say) and director per production, and crew members only when and if signficant because of an important innovation. To streamline the article, the excess information can go one of two places: (1) Footnotes; or (2) a separate sub-article which lists cast and crew for each RSC production. Or the excess information can simply be deleted.

Hope that helps. Softlavender (talk) 04:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This whole article needs to be rewritten from scratch. It's absolutely awful. Promotional, non-NPOV, self-indulgent, overly detailed, terrible writing style. Useless trivial levels of minutia. And beyond undersourced, with far too little independent sourcing to establish notability. Like, this company really wasn't that special. Its Wikipedia article shouldn't try to be the definitve history that no one not directly involved would ever care about. oknazevad (talk) 22:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]