Template:Did you know nominations/Marie Jansen
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 12:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Marie Jansen
[edit]
... that Marie Jansen (pictured), after a highly successful career in musical theatre, declared bankruptcy and was forced to work as a seamstress?
Created by Jfbarlow (talk), Ssilvers (talk). Nominated by Pgallert (talk) at 20:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC).
-
- I don't think the hook is worded very well, unless she was enslaved or someone held a gun to her head as she sewed. The article says nothing about her being "forced to work" as a seamstress. ALT1 just rewords the original and can be used right now, but ALT2 would require an independent verification:
- ALT1: ... that after a highly successful career in musical theatre, Marie Jansen (pictured) declared bankruptcy and worked as a seamstress?
- ALT2: ... that Marie Jansen (pictured) reportedly earned a half a million dollars in musical theatre, but after declaring bankruptcy was unable to pay her weekly seven dollar lodging bill while working as a seamstress? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Have struck original hook as problematic; ALT hooks still need reviewing, as do other DYK requirements not mentioned in original review, including neutrality and close paraphrasing checks. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Both ALT1 and ALT2 rely on the same offline source, for which good faith is assumed. I prefer ALT2, it's more "hooky". As previous reviewer mentioned, the article is new enough and long enough. Now to address the things the original reviewer didn't. Images, including the one with the nomination, are suitably licensed. There's only one reference which I can access, number 6. The text "the tile (sic) role in an unauthorized production of Patience at the Standard.[6]" isn't fully supported, there is nothing about being unauthorized, and there is a typo. The other references are offline so will assume good faith again. Neutrality is existent. I would request the named sentence be re-worked and then this one should be good to go. C679 18:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- Typo fixed. Will ask the creator whether another source supports the "unauthorized". --Pgallert (talk) 08:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- I added refs for "unauthorized". The only US Production of Patience that was authorized by the creators and their producer, Richard D'Oyly Carte, in the 1880s was the one at the Standard Theatre that ran from September 1881 to March 1882. Plus, reference #6 states that Iolanthe was Jansen's "only D'Oyly Carte engagement" – so her other Gilbert and Sullivan engagements were in unauthorized productions, because D'Oyly Carte held the authors' exclusive rights to produce G&S. In the US, however, G&S copyrights were not honored, because there was no international copyright treaty at the time. See "The Twilight of the Opera Pirates: A Prehistory of the Right of Public Performance for Musical Compositions", Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, Vol. 24, 2007, pp. 1157–1218. Also see Goodman, Andrew. Gilbert and Sullivan at Law, pp. 204–05, Fairleigh Dickinson Univ Press (1982), ISBN 0838631797. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Typo fixed. Will ask the creator whether another source supports the "unauthorized". --Pgallert (talk) 08:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)