Talk:Disgraced

Disgraced has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 23, 2011	Candidate for speedy deletion	Deleted
December 6, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 7, 2013.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Disgraced is a Pulitzer Prize-winning play that depicts the challenges for upwardly mobile Muslim Americans in the post-9/11 America?

Current status: Good article

Pakistan Low‑importance

	Pakistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Islam Low‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Theatre Mid‑importance

	Theatre portal This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

CSD

According to the logs, this article was deleted on 01:40, 23 June 2011 by Gogo Dodo (talk · contribs) as a WP:CSD#A7 (Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Disgraced/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 23:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator: TonyTheTiger

Hello again. This looks like a fascinating play, and the article is a strong GA nominee. Most of the GA criteria pass right away, but I have found a few issues.

Resolved issues

Typos: There are a few tiny typos in the format.
- There's a space before a footnote in "Critical commentary"
  - Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- a stray hyphen at the end of a paragraph in "Production history"
  - Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- inconsistent dashes and hyphens in the "category" column of the Award chart.
  - Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - That last one is still a problem. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar: Criterion 1a requires that the grammar be correct. The grammar is mostly excellent, but there is a small, persistent problem with parenthetics in dates. (See MOS:COMMA.) So when there's a date formatted like "January 27, 2012" that doesn't end a sentence, it needs to be followed by a comma. This is a minor problem throughout. Similarly, when you mention a city-state combo like "Chicago, Illinois", a comma is needed after Illinois.
- Done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Order: Personally, I would place the "Cast" section toward the end. I would also move "Plot" up. But that's not a GA requirement.
- I have moved the plot above the cast, but I don't feel that a lot more content belongs ahead of cast, especially considering recent GA for Kinky Boots (musical).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's fine. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraphs: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout says "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized". Both the "Cast" and "Plot" sections end with one. Is there any way this can be rearranged?
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Links: I would link Pakistani-American,
- Done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Italics: Disgraced should be italicized whenever mentioned in the text. Also, I believe the name of the local Chicago version of Time Out is Time Out Chicago, so that whole thing should be italicized.
- Done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity: I don't know what an "Islamic-themed blonde artist wife" is. Also, when the text says "charges of financing terrorist-supporting groups that may be trumped-up", it sounds like the groups might be trumped up, but I think you mean the charges.
- She is blonde and an Islamic-themed artist. I have rephrased slightly. Rephrased the other phrase too.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The wording in the description of Emily is still confusing and clunky. In a way, this is related to the "Fiction" issue below. I think they will both be fixed by fully rewording the plot section. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm combining this issue with the subsequent one. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fiction: Plots should be in present case, usually. For my clarification, did the play show all of the events described? Or did the play only show the dinner conversation? If the former, the order of the events in Plot should be corrected, and everything should be put in present tense. If the latter, the text should make that clear (with "Amir describes to his guests..." or something.)
Later follow-up: If the entire play takes place over a single dinner party (which I suspect is the case), then the plot section should say that, perhaps in an introductory sentence that also says the play is 90 minutes. The plot section should describe the actual shows events in present tense (e.g. "Amir tells his guests [whatever], but Abe and Isaac react [however].") Also, since the casting section gives all their names, the plot section should give the names of the characters and not just descriptions like "an ex-Muslim, an African-American", etc. Also, there are a few other instances of poor wording, such as "dining over the topic", "when he hosts a colleague", etc. I think it would be best to rewrite the plot section entirely, or very nearly so.
- I have never seen the play, so I won't rewrite the Plot. I have added a bit to it and revised it for tense.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, okay, let me look over the sources and get back with you on this. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've read all the sources for the plot section, plus a Variety review, and I can't tell what's shown onscreen and what's only discussed. We can't go beyond the sources, so we'll have to make due with what we have. I like the changes you've made so far to the "plot" section, especially with tenses, but I feel a few more changes are necessary.

The first sentence, introducing the two characters with a string of descriptors, is very awkward. What if the first sentence were something like this? "In the 90-minute, one-act play, lawyer Amir Kapoor and his wife Emily host an Upper East Side dinner." The next sentence could describe both these characters in a more natural way.

done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After the sentence "The case becomes dinner conversation when he hosts a colleague from work and her husband", those two characters should be mentioned by name and described, just as the other characters have been. The sources support this.

Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once you do that, I think the "plot" section should be fine. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead: Per MOS:LEAD, the lead needs to be expanded to fully summarize the most important aspects of the article.
- I have expanded a little. Are there other issues that need to be included.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The lead now covers production history, critical commentary, themes, and awards. I think it's necessary to include at least a sentence or two of plot. Something like "The play focuses on a dinner party between four people with very different backgrounds. As discussion turns to politics and religion, and the mood quickly becomes heated." (Or whatever plot discussion works for you.) It should also have a sentence about casting: perhaps "Productions have included performances by Aasif Mandvi, Alana Arenas, and Erik Jensen." – Quadell ^(talk) 18:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
All issues have been resolved, and I'm happy to promote this article. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outside opinions

I always welcome outside opinions, though I will pass or fail this article based on my own assessment of whether the article fulfills our GA criteria. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Ssilvers always has a lot of commentary on the plays and musicals. I suspect he may have more comments than you. He always is of the opinion that there is a lot more work to meet his standards. Expect a 2nd opinion regardless of what you think about this. He is also likely to help me respond to your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been summoned! I don't care about this article, but it is not GA quality yet. Just looking at it for 2 seconds, I see that it does not have an adequte WP:LEAD section or plot summary, and little discussion of the original production: how was it designed and staged? How did the staging illuminate the themes? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't care about Pulitzer Prize-winner? Given some of the small-time things that I have done that you have spent time with, I am a bit surprised. Well, I didn't want to sneak one past you since you always seem to want to comment. Feel free to go back to whatever you were doing.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the article. It is not well written and fails to engage the reader. Also noticeable lack of images from either production or the cast.Turnitinpro (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Lack of images is irrelevant to a WP:GAN. Not sure where engaging the reader falls in relation to WP:WIAGA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Images are the 6th criteria for WP:GACR. Failed to engage me because prose lacked something in its clarity and brevity.Turnitinpro (talk) 03:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Images have never been required for a WP:GAC. If you have them they have to follow WP:GACR, but they are not required.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Prose suggestions welcome.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Turnitinpro, Your edits [1] have now screwed up the template at the top twice. What are you doing?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - There's an HTML error in the template. WTF is "
        "? It was deprecated in 2004, W3C fought over it and then it got back as "
        " in 2009. I use a proprietary (non-free) browser purchased in 2007 which can't abide sloppy coding.Turnitinpro (talk) 12:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Disgraced. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Disgraced. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Disgraced. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]