Talk:The Demi-Virgin/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 16:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What a great topic. Happy to offer a review, but it may come in bits. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does "to increase box office" work? It doesn't sound at all right to me.

Sounds fine to me, but I write a lot of play articles so I may be too used to industry jargon. Changed to "increase ticket sales".

The lead is a little short; I'd like to hear a bit more about the plot, the cast and (especially) the (lack of) legacy. For an article of this length, two paragraphs of about the length of the current lead paragraph would be appropriate, I'd say.

~~Started expanding; will add a bit more later.~~ Expanded to two paragraphs.

"was inspired by an earlier theatrical adaptation of the novel Les Demi-vierges" Could we have a little more about this? What year was the novel? What year was the adaptation? Whose adaptation was it?

Added details on date of novel and adaptation. Who did the adaptation isn't something I immediately found, but I'll keep looking.

It's the Times Square Theater, according to our article on it.

Contemporary reviews of this play and discussions of it in later sources name the venue as "Times Square Theatre". It's possible that the spelling was changed in later years, or that our article is misnamed.

I wonder whether some more names in the plot section would help link it up to the cast list? Also, I wonder whether a column list, or perhaps some more pictures of the actors, would help with the white space?

I expanded the plot summary a bit to get in a couple more names, but there is only so much I can do here. The play itself was never published, so I'm relying on previous summaries, which focus mostly on the two main characters. I also moved the Cast section up to be right after Plot, which should help the connection. I added more cast images in a 2x2 array to help fill the white space.

"Dorothy Parker cracked that" What does cracked mean in this context?

Changed to ~~"joked"~~ "quipped".

A first glance at the sources suggest that there are no problems there. The images are OK, but I do feel that the article's a little cluttered at the moment; perhaps you could experiment with moving them around? They can be shifted to the left, and we have Template:Multiple image, too. I also don't know how much File:Eltinge 42nd Street Theatre.jpg is adding.

Moved the entire Cast section as discussed above, and flipped two other images. There's also a bit more text now due to expansions, so hopefully they aren't too crowded. Regarding the theater image, I do like having images of the physical space for play articles -- an image of the staged performance is ideal, but not available in this case. I think the specific image reinforces that this controversial play appeared at a good-sized, well-appointed Broadway theater, not some tiny Off-Broadway venue or burlesque house.

That's everything from the first read-through, but no doubt other niggles will arise. That said, it's a strong article, and not at all far from where it needs to be for GA status. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some initial responses/updates inserted above. Will work on it more in a bit. --RL0919 (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC) OK, I think I'm done for now, so feel free to give it another pass. --RL0919 (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've had another look through and I've little left to say; I am happy that the article exceeds the criteria set out at WP:WIAGA, and so I am happy to promote. Great work. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]