Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Demi-Virgin/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 08:13, 14 May 2017 [1].

---

The Demi-Virgin

Nominator(s): RL0919 (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

This FAC is for a stage play, but this time one with less performance history than my previous nominations. Avery Hopwood's 1921 bedroom farce is insignificant as literature and outdated as entertainment. It is remembered primarily for the censorship dispute it generated when producer A. H. Woods was charged with staging an obscene exhibition. Woods beat the charges and strolled from the courthouse to the bank, collecting big profits from the controversy and paving the way for even more provocative shows. The article has been GA for a few months and just got a fresh GOCE copy edit, so I look forward to your FA reviews. RL0919 (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

• "most famous scene": Who says it's famous? - Dank (push to talk) 17:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Well-written and focused. - Dank (push to talk) 18:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your edits and support. Re-reading the sources now, I think "most controversial" would be a better description of the scene, so I've modified the wording and added citations. --RL0919 (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. --RL0919 (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support on prose. This reads smoothly from beginning to end and seems to lack nothing. My only suggestion is to reduce "actively promoted" to "promoted" in the lede. You don't need the adverb. Finetooth (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your support and a reasonable suggestion that is now implemented. --RL0919 (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Support. I had my say at GAC, and the article has only improved since then. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. --RL0919 (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• Current ref 8 "Review of the Rialto" - surely you mean newspapers.com, not newspapers.c?
  • I don't see the issue you are referring to. Perhaps someone else fixed it, or maybe it was a display error when you were reviewing? --RL0919 (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Not there now... but weird. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
• Need a location for the 1911 EB ref to be consistent with the other refs
  • I added this to the {{Cite EB1911}} template. I'm hoping that will be uncontroversial. --RL0919 (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
• Be consistent in either including location for the newspapers in your newspaper citations or not including it. Currently you do both.
  • Done. --RL0919 (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
• Earwig's tool shows a no sign of copyright violation.

Otherwise everything looks okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Response comments inserted above. --RL0919 (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Support I've read through the article twice and there is nothing I would change. It's very readable and well developed. Moisejp (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. --RL0919 (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 08:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.