Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Unconquered (1940 play)/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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 24 July 2019 [1].

The Unconquered (1940 play)

Nominator(s): RL0919 (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Broadway play The Unconquered. This tale of woe includes a leading lady trying to play a role half her age, an actor who took the saying "break a leg" a bit too literally, an author who had to get drunk to tolerate the dress rehearsal, and an embarrassing failure that led that author to permanently abandon writing for Broadway. Those are the real-life events, not the plot of the play! I hope this FAC is more successful than its subject. RL0919 (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Tim riley

A clear, interesting and well constructed article. Only v. minor comments:

Info-box – "Melodrama" surprises me slightly. Does the author so describe the play?

I don't think she stated a genre. "Melodrama" is from the reviewers.

Structure – We have shockingly few stage works (other than operas) as FAs so far, and I see practice has varied as regards the order of the sections. Of the four I've looked at just now, two (like this one) have the plot first and then the background and the production history; the other two have the background and the production history before the detailed synopsis. The latter structure seems to me more logical, but I don't by any means press the point.

It varies even within the ones I've written, sometimes for specific reasons. In this case I don't think there is any significant impact to one order vs. the other, so I've swapped it per your suggestion.

Synopsis – If I remember correctly, we usually use subheaders to indicate in plot summaries which bits of the action are in each act. That would be helpful here, and would have the additional advantage of breaking the 600+ word section into more digestible chunks.

Looking at our current FAs about plays, only two (Hamlet and South Pacific) use act subheaders, and they both have surprisingly long (1300+ words) plot summaries. What most of the FAs do, which I haven't done here, is indicate in the text which parts of the plot fall in each act. I'd rather do that than add subheaders, if that's OK.

OK with me, certainly. I shan't wait for the small additions you suggest before adding my support. Tim riley talk 16:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Broadway cast – I don't see the point of making the table sortable, but if you are going to keep it so, I'm not sure it will really do to have the actors sorted by their first rather than their surnames.

Sorting is more interesting for plays that have multiple major productions, so I've taken the simple path here and removed the sort option.

A wise move, I think. Tim riley talk 16:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note b could do with a citation.

Added.

I hope these small points are helpful. Tim riley talk 07:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing! Replies added above, but basically all handled except one item as explained. --RL0919 (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All fine with me. Happy to support promotion of this article, which seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Evidently comprehensive, balanced, a good read, nicely illustrated, well and widely referenced. Good stuff. Tim riley talk 16:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support! To finish off the discussion above, I've updated the plot summary to indicate where the acts start. --RL0919 (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

Anti-communist or Anti-Communist?

I went with the capitalization used in our article about the subject. Open to whatever you prefer though – to the extent the two could be distinguished in 1920s Russia, Rand was both, and either would have been trouble for her, so the biographical point being made would not be affected.

"Abbott, who had a long track record on Broadway, was not strongly impacted by the failure of The Unconquered." Does your source specifically say he wasn't impacted? This sounds like OR.

Mantle generalizes that Abbott didn't need to worry about having a few plays that fail because he had plenty of money from his hits, and The Unconquered in particular is mentioned as one he didn't have to worry about failing. Since the article was written after The Unconquered had already closed, the inference that he wasn't strongly impacted seems obvious enough not to be OR.

That's all I have to say! I only realised a few paragraphs in that I was the GA reviewer, though it looks like I didn't have much to say there, either. A very strong article. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing (again)! Replies added above. --RL0919 (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I really can't fault the images, sourcing, or writing. It'd be easy for a Rand article to have real POV issues, too, but this one feels unscrupulously "neutral". Coordinators: I was the GA reviewer. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support! Looking at the 'communist'/'Communist' question, I noticed that all but two instances were capitalized, so I went ahead and made it consistently capital. --RL0919 (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aoba47

This is a very small suggestion for this part (her family helped Rand emigrate to the United States in 1926). I am not sure if it would sound better to say “Rand’s family helped her emigrate…” to avoid having the “her” pronoun first in this subject position. It could be a stylistic choice though and it is not incorrect in the current wording, but it stood out to me while reading the article.
For this part (It drew on her experiences to depict life in the…), I think “she” would be a better word choice than “it” since Rand is the one drawing experience from her life and criticizing these ideologies. I understand the current wording, but I am not sure if it is giving this agency to the book over the author (if that makes any sense).
For this sentence (The Soviet government has executed his father and…) in the “Plot” section, I do not believe the “Soviet” wikilink is necessary. The “Soviet Union” was already wikilinked in the “History” section so it seems like a repeated link here.
I have a question about this part (…and expropriated his family's property…) from the “Plot” section, specifically the “expropriated” wikilink. The word “expropriated” is first used in the first sentence of the “History” section so I think it would be better to move the wikilink up to that part and unlink it here.
The same comment applies to the “bourgeois” wikilink in the “Plot” section. The word is reference in the “History” section so I think moving the wikilink up to that part and unlinking it here would be the best course of action.

This is a very fascinating read. I must admit that I know shockingly little about Rand. I have only read Anthem and the first few chapters of Atlas Shrugged. I am not a particularly good reviewer, but I hope that my comments have helped at least somewhat. Once my relatively minor comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. You definitely inspire me to work on an article about a play in the future. Have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing! I've implemented your suggested changes. Let me know if you spot anything else. --RL0919 (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC. Either way, have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

No spotchecks carried out
All external links to sources are working. I believe that "Commonweal" (Hartung, 1940) may be wikilinked to Commonweal (magazine)
Formats appear to be uniform and consistent
Quality and reliability: No issues here that I can identify – the sources appear to meet the necessary criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 14:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I forgot to reply, so belated thanks for reviewing. I added the link you suggested. --RL0919 (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cassianto

I could see no issues with this at all. This was a pleasure to read and it fits the FA criteria perfectly. Cassianto^Talk 07:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing and for your support! --RL0919 (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Image licenses and uses seem OK to me. ALT text looks so-so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing! If you have any specific ideas for the alt text, feel free to suggest and/or edit them. --RL0919 (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Laser brain (talk) 11:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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