Talk:She Has a Name/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 19:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

At first glance, this looks very solid, and I don't anticipate many issues with this getting to GA. Thanks for writing about this important play. I'll add some more detailed comments as I go.

I'll do some minor copyediting as I proceed through the article; feel free to revert anything you disagree with, and please doublecheck me to make sure I don't inadvertently introduce any errors.
After starting to write the play, Kooman read about the Ranong human-trafficking incident,[6] in which 121 people were trafficked from Burma to Thailand[7] and left in a locked water tank,[5] which was then abandoned by its drivers[8] and was only discovered after 54 of the people had died[9] from suffocation[10] or hyperthermia.[11]" This sentence is very difficult to read due to its length and the number of footnotes that interrupt it. Would it be possible to break it into two sentences, and put the footnotes at the end rather than after each word?
"When the truck was discovered in April 2008,[12] it contained men,[11] women and children, all of whom had been smuggled across the Malaysia–Thailand border.[5]" -- another sentence disrupted by over-footnoting. You might consider using footnotes in the style displayed at Christian Science (see refs 26 or 159); this would allow you to cite 4-5 sources per sentence without interfering with the reader's comprehension of the sentence.
Scripts at Work is introduced early in a paragraph and linked and explained at its end; this should probably get context on the first mention instead of the second.

More later... -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking on this GAN. I have switched the "Scripts At Work" link to the first mention. I've also looked over your copyediting and it all looks great, except for the last edit which I altered. Please let me know if the restructuring meets with your approval. With respect to the two reference-heavy sentences you mention above, my concern with moving the references to the end of the sentence is that each reference only sources the portion of the sentence that precedes it; to move all the references to the end of the sentence prevents the reader from knowing which reference sources which portion of the information. Still, if such is not against Wikipedia guidelines or policy and is deemed preferable to mid-sentence references, I am content to have the references moved to the ends of the sentences. Neelix (talk) 05:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think it's better that way. You can see WP:CITEBUNDLE for a few strategies on how to do this. On an unrelated note, I won't have Internet access for the next 3-7 days. I apologize for the delay this will cause in the review. I'm excited about this one and looking forward to finishing it off when I get back. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have bundled the citations for both sentences per the guidline you mention. Neelix (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm back on; sorry again for the delay. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing

Okay, I'm through to the end and this seems quite good to me. My main concerns at this point are with a few opinions that should probably be attributed in-text, and a few other points regarding the critical response. Let me know your thoughts, and thanks again for your work on this.

"Kooman's changes strengthened the emotional pull of the play" -- this opinion should be attributed in-text rather than written in Wikipedia's voice ("According to reviewer Lana Michelin...")
"and the play ends in catastrophe" -- What is the catastrophe? The play's ending should be described more concretely, given the level of detail up until now.
"Number 18 is a nuanced character, better-developed than the stock damsel in distress character" -- this opinion should be attributed in-text
"The drama has a fast pace[31] and, while She Has a Name is an emotional play, there are lighter moments where audience members can laugh,[63] maintaining the audience's engagement with the story so they do not become numb to the play's emotional pulls." -- more opinions/interpretation to attribute in-text ("Critic X described it as fast-paced...")
"The play's premiere and initial run were more critically acclaimed than expected." -- does this have a source? The acclaim is noted, but not the original expectations. (Also, expected by who?)
"The writing of the play in general has been labelled "astounding"" -- is this really the general opinion? Reading the reviews in more detail again suggests to me that this is rather misleading. I'm also not sure that a psuedonymous blog review at "Bloody Underrated" is worth including here; if it is to be included, though, I'd suggest at least making the source of this opinion clear in-text and not using it to lead off the section.
This isn't necessary for GA review, but I'd strongly suggest bundling more of the sentences that have multiple footnotes; the bright blue footnotes repeatedly interrupting the text makes the article unnecessarily difficult to read. (Or at least for a reader with my level of concentration.) Similarly, I'm not sure the plot and character sections need to be so heavily referenced; plot sections are often not referenced at all in play articles. Again, though, you don't have worry about this for GA; just making suggestions for the future that might help with another run at FA status. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have attributed the opinion statements you mention above in-text. Unfortunately, I can't be more specific about the play's concluding catastrophe because its specifics are not mentioned in any secondary sources. The play has not been published, so it is not possible to cite the play itself. That is also why there are so many references in the plot and character sections; we can't just source it all to the play, as we would do on most articles about plays. The statement "The play's premiere and intial run were more critically acclaimed than expected" is referenced by the source that follows it: the 100 Huntley Street citation. That source refers to the overwhelmingly positive reactions to the premiere and initial run as an "unexpected response" that led to the planning of the 2012 tour; the source does not mention whose expections are being referenced. If you find the statement too vague, I can shorten it to "The play's premiere and initial run were critically acclaimed." I'm not sure where you see the reference to the writing in the play as "astounding"; the "Bloody Underrated" source was removed from the article a long time ago. I will be sure to bundle more citations in preparation for another Featured Article candidacy; thank you for the recommendation. Neelix (talk) 20:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing those.

For the plot, have you seen this play so that you could simply summarize it yourself? It's really not necessary to cite anything in the plot summary but direct quotations, and in fact the standard approach would be not to. (See, to pick three featured fiction articles at random, Le Père Goriot, The General in His Labyrinth, or The Red Badge of Courage). If you haven't seen the play, we can try to figure out another approach.

For the "more critically acclaimed than expected", that'll be fine; I didn't realize it was in that citation, but that's my mistake.

As far as the "astounded" goes, I apologize for the second mistake; I had the main article and the "critical response" subarticle open at the same time and must have confused them. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've started the final checklist (below). I think this one's just about there. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is clear, spotchecks show no copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	~~Is it possible to add a sentence or two about the play's themes in the lead? Ideally, the lead should touch on all sections.~~
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	~~Ideally, I'd like to include a complete plot summary, though perhaps this is impossible.~~
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass.

I've removed all of the citations from the "Plot summary" section along with most of the citations from the "Characters" section; I left the ones that I thought needed to remain, but I can remove them as well if you disagree. I have also added two sentences from the "Themes" section to the lead. Fortunately, I have seen the play, so I have explained how the plot concludes at the end of the "Plot summary" section. You have a question mark next to 1a; is there something that requires doing on that front? Neelix (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, just hadn't remembered to update that yet to reflect that I'd done the spotchecks. This is all set and a big pass! -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]