Jump to content

Talk:Kinky Boots (musical)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleKinky Boots (musical) 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.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 7, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
November 25, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
December 1, 2013Good article nomineeListed
August 29, 2015Featured article candidateNot promoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 18, 2012.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the producer, director, choreographer and writer of the upcoming Broadway musical Kinky Boots have all won Tony Awards, while its lyricist is a Grammy Award winner?
Current status: Good article

Synopsis

[edit]

Article is really missing a Synopsis section, is anyone able to add one. Blethering Scot 14:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course all articles about musicals should have a substantial plot summary based, ideally, on the script. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the synopsis is incorrect. My memory of the musical is its its charlie who takes lauren to the bar having already met Lola, to show her what hes found. She did tell him to find a niche market though. Blethering Scot 18:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Chicago

[edit]

I do not think it is appropriate to tag this article under the Chicago Wikiproject. Musicals do not need to be tagged by the Wikiprojects from each city where they play. If the show was *about* Chicago, it might be appropriate. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. I would not mind if you detagged it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tony award winning

[edit]

I reverted this mainly because i object to the use of WP:Peacock to do so. Main part is words there isn't any Puffery or Peacock words used in the opening statement, just pure fact backed by a source, its not peackocking to say it is a tony award winning show nor is it a unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance. Below is the full definition of it. Whilst there are other arguments against its inclusion or exclusion WP:Peacock is not the correct one and users should discuss rather this before removing a statement on it or add the appropriate template for review. Blethering Scot 17:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... legendary, great, acclaimed, visionary, outstanding, leading, celebrated, landmark, cutting-edge, extraordinary, brilliant, famous, renowned, remarkable, prestigious, world-class, respected, notable, virtuoso ...

Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as "peacock terms" by Wikipedia contributors. Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance.[1]

  • Peacock example:
  • Bob Dylan is the defining figure of the 1960s counterculture and a brilliant songwriter.
  • Just the facts:
  • Dylan was included in Time's 100: The Most Important People of the Century, where he was called "master poet, caustic social critic and intrepid, guiding spirit of the counterculture generation".[2] By the mid-1970s, his songs had been covered by hundreds of other artists.[3]

Articles suffering from such language should be rewritten to correct the problem or may be tagged with the {{Peacock}} template.

It doesnt cover it at all Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance.

The rationale at WP:ACTOR applies here. The use of a single award as the first piece of information presented about this musical is puffery. It is saying that the fact that this musical has won a Tony award is more important than any other award or any other aspect of the show, including the actual subject. Furthermore, no FA or GA musical theatre article includes this adjectival description in the lede. The fact of the award being is already included in the lede with more detail. BOVINEBOY2008 18:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Several points there is nothing in puffery or WP:Peacock that applies here as clearly shown above as its a fact, if i said its a multiple award winning musical then i may agree on that point but if doesn't. WP:Actor doesn't apply either its about a totally different topic. So why hide behind them because thats what you've done twice so far? So lets drop that now and actually get somewhere like you should of done when asked to discuss in the first place. I actually agree to a degree on some of your last points and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section is the most appropriate mos to quote is it not? I don't think its pov but could be argued it gives undue providence to that one award, however it is the biggest award available to the show and probably the main thing that the 48,124 people who looked at this page yesterday were looking for info about.[1]. Either way the lede needs expanded as doesn't cover all points raised in the article either. Im happy to remove that part of the lede but unless it mentions other awards then its not accurately covering the article.Blethering Scot 19:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Throughout the musicals project (WP:MUSICALS) we do not lead off in the opening sentence with award-winning. Not only is it puffery, but it shows a lack of balance and neutrality. See WP:UNDUE. It is just poor judgment. The information about the Tony Awards is already given three other times in the article, and the discussion of awards is already given too much prominence. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its not puffery so i suggest you read what puffery is as its been made very clear that this does not fall under that. Your project is a mess that does not focus on improvement at all. And as a member of that so called project dont lecture me about bad judgement. Oh and the synopsis you added was factually incorrect.Blethering Scot 17:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you can correct plot points described in the synopsis, go ahead. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ The template {{Peacock term}} is available for inline notation of such language where used inappropriately.
  2. ^ Cocks, Jay (June 14, 1999). "The Time 100: Bob Dylan". Time. Retrieved October 5, 2008. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  3. ^ Grossman, Loyd. A Social History of Rock Music: From the Greasers to Glitter Rock (McKay: 1976), p. 66.

AFT5 Feedback Run Time

[edit]

A Feedback on AFT5 comments ask for a run time to be included in article. Personally i agree but under which section should this be included.Blethering Scot 18:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Kinky Boots (musical)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 16:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will review

Lead

[edit]

Background

[edit]
  • This section looks to be rather short, and seems to be reliant on a single Chicago Tribune source. I don't think that's really enough to pass criteria 3a to be honest. Have a look at Hair (musical), a musical GA, which contains substantial information about the creators' backgrounds, what they were interested in, why they wanted to create the musical, and how they went about pitching it on Broadway.
  • The Chicago Tribune source is, rather annoyingly, blocked for non US readers, so I can't personally verify the information in it. However, that just reinforces my claim that I think more sources are required for this section. You could add something from the Huffington Post source, where Lauper says she liked the plot as it was about "real people with real jobs".

Production history

[edit]

Chicago and Broadway

[edit]

US National tour

[edit]
  • This section is only one paragraph long
    • We are structuring this article to welcome whatever type of crowdsourcing assistance we might get. This section will obviously get full when other theatres are named. I have expanded the section, but it still remains short. I could merge it with the section above if you really want me to, however.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • For what it's worth, Tony, I would merge them, because the National tour of a Broadway show is usually considered part of the same production. I imagine that this show will have other productions, eventually, and we can add them then. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis

[edit]
I think you've misunderstood. The summary might be as large in size as Hair, but in proportion to the rest of the article, it's substantially different - largely because Hair is more complete and broad in scope elsewhere. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Music

[edit]
  • The "instrumentation" section is only a single sentence. Also the prose states "The musical uses a twelve-member orchestra" then lists 11 roles.
  • As this information comes from the PlayBill Vault source, I think it may be more worthwhile merging "instrumentation" together with "principal cast".
Instrumentation, isn't relevant to cast its relevant to music. Instrumentation was longer but was shortened to be more concise and not provide too intricate detail, it could also be sourced to the programme.Blethering Scot 17:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here, though, is that a single sentence section goes against the guidelines in MOS:LAYOUT, which is required to meet the GA criteria. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It will need to go back to a longer length then, or be expanded with other things such as style of the music and orchestration. Also in regard to the instrumentation shows use more than one person, using more then one instrument so two people can use the same instruments.Blethering Scot 17:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2 keyboards, 2 guitars, 1 drums, 1 bass, 1Trumpet, 1 trombone ,1 reeds, 1 violin, 1 violin/viola and 1 cello. Totals 12 people. Blethering Scot 17:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Music Type

[edit]

Article doesn't say what type of music the show uses. Is it rock, motown, pop? What are the influences of the music and where any songs used from the original production.Blethering Scot 21:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reaction

[edit]

Awards and nominations

[edit]
  • I'm not sure what the relevance is of a 2011 live picture of Cyndi Lauper at this point. It messes up the flow of the article, with a large gap between "Original Broadway Production" and the nomination / awards list
√ Although an image of someone who won an award i agree that is not entirely relevant and as doesn't add any further context or info to supplied text i have removed it. If we have photo of her collecting the award then it would be good, but we don't.Blethering Scot 17:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
√ Fixed Blethering Scot 16:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]
  • File:KinkyBootsBroadway.JPG is marked CC-BY-SA 3.0 but has a prominent and clear shot of the musical's logo. Are you sure this qualifies as de minimis for a free image?
For musical articles it adds something that you cannot through text to have an image of the theatre it plays at. Any image you would use will have show markings in it, its unavoidable. I have other photos but they all have some kinky boots markings even from different angles, and older photos have markings of other shows which is worse. Im not sure how we can avoid this. All the marketing and signage have been widely issued as press releases. To be honest I'm not sure what to do here.Blethering Scot 17:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I think of off the top of my head. I'll come back to more specific comments later. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cast List

[edit]

Cast List only include Broadway production not original production. As such it is an incomplete overview of that section which needs rectified, even if cast is the same which at the moment the article doesn't show or fully explain.Blethering Scot 21:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Broadway production is the first "major" production. You don't need a full cast list of the Chicago tryout. To the extent that the Chicago cast was different from the Broadway cast, the differences should be noted in the Productions section. See, by way of comparison, how the out-of-town tryouts are discussed in these FA-class articles (in the early sections), and not included in the cast tables (scroll up, in each case to see the discussions of the tryouts): The King and I#Principal roles and notable performers, Carousel (musical)#Principal roles and notable performers and South Pacific (musical)#Principal roles and notable performers. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This GA is closed at this point. You've made the point in other places and a peer review has been requested. Its an incomplete picture and shouldn't be going though GA unless its complete. This listing show business is a load of nonsense cause i could list back at you the ones that do but I'm not being petty.Blethering Scot 22:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stability

[edit]

I see an edit war (or at the very least a set of reverts, one of which advises WP:BRD) has broken out on the article amongst the key editors. I was already concerned about it meeting criteria 3a, but I can't in good conscience carry on the review while that's happening, and so I'm afraid I'll have to fail it on GA criteria #5 (stability). I am happy to re-assess the article as C-class, but no further. What I would recommend is to get the article up to B class, get a peer review that confirms it meets the B-class criteria, and then (and only then), re-nominate it for a GA review. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair the editor was asked to self revert and discuss. It would be better if you put on hold for now rather than simply failing within hours of opening review. Especially since article is fluxing anyway why large copy edits are done. Blethering Scot 21:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The stability wasn't the only issue - as I said, I was concerned about a lack of broad coverage (and I don't think I'm alone in that view). I think you need to hammer things out and decide on a way forward with the article first, then we can regroup later. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is incomplete in some respects but putting the article on hold means concerns can be addressed. There are issues that i can think of and I've added that they need addressed to. Putting on hold would be best way forward and i strongly would urge you to consider putting on hold for a short period, its amazing how much can be rectified in a short period of time.Blethering Scot 21:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CD Listing and further GA Problems

[edit]

If something is notable and relevant to the encyclopaedia and on this article why would we create a separate article that we would link from this one and then link back. The article is small enough and doesn't need split into sub articles, especially what would be a stub article. Creating sub articles is unnecessary and not helping the GA Process. Part of that GA is that article should be stable. In addition there are other problems, we don't include the cast for the seattle production which we really should as we are not covering the overall topic, we don't discuss the style and influences of the music included either.Blethering Scot 20:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per Bold revert discuss i started this discussion, however i will note that this was edit warred back despite article being stable before that revert which it is no longer.Blethering Scot 20:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article is currently being proposed to be improved to the GA level. I have been working on musicals on Wikipedia for 6 years. None of the FA articles have track listings from the cast album. So, by putting the info in here, you will make the promotion to GA unlikely. Other show albums have their own articles on Wikipedia, but those are much more important albums, like the Hair cast album. I suggest that you calm down and let me make my copy edits, and then we can calmly discuss what you don't like, rather than fighting prematurely. Your GA reviewer has asked me for my analysis, and I will certainly let him know my opinion that including the track listing is cruft with respect to this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or Wicked or Spiderman or many others. Hair is hardly an important cast album. Pathetic and your still don't address the primary concerns at all.Blethering Scot 21:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thats your opinion and i find it very questionable especially given you suggest creating another article which i will out of protest but i will suggest a merge back immeditaly through that process, given that this article is short enough, appropriate enough and the content is notable to this article. Part of a GA process is that the article is stable. It is not and as such also you nominated article and certainly shouldn't be helping the reviewer carry out the his review and i will be adding my concerns re the article to the review. Its not GA suitable by a mile at present. Also you edit warred and quoted a policy which you have no respect for by not reverting your own edits and failing to discuss prior to what was outside that circle.Blethering Scot 20:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Im still waiting on an explanation re why you choose to make the article unstable by not using the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle despite quoting the policy. Blethering Scot 21:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I struck out part of comment as its incorrect however i still feel the same you shouldn't be helping out with the review.Blethering Scot 21:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reviewer notified me of the GA review. I gave him my thoughts. I think you guys would have been better off to go to peer review first. But I asked the reviewer NOT to quickfail the article. If you had not been so obstructive, it probably would be on its way to GA now. BTW, if you don't know that the Hair album was a seminal show album, then you don't know anything about musical theatre. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssilvers: You guys. I never nominated it, never considered nominating it. Me obstructive, your the one who edit warred not me, i simply actioned the Bold Revert Discuss cycle which is what we are supposed to do. I was very intent on helping get this further but i will not stand for being called disruptive for making a revert and taking to talk page. Address that quickly because you cant quote a policy and attempt to hide behind it. I am re-ading this to article and it can be discussed like it should of been right at the beginning. I know Hair but after time its as notable as any other and it really could be easily housed in the main article anyway, we don't need separate article for everything. Blethering Scot 21:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose giving the track listing for the cast album and its infobox. It is completely irrelevant to have the cast album's track listing in an article which is about the musical. If the album is notable enough, then IMO it should have an article of its own. --CassiantoTalk 18:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which means we are currently two editors against three on this point. Both make valid points so there isn't a strong consensus either way. Personally i think sub articles are a waste of time unless the main article is irrelevant too it or is too large and needs split, which isn't the case here. Its relevant to here, yet would be notable as a stand alone as well, certainly more than a few of the other musical album articles we have. What i want to know is if there is a valid reason that this issue would effect a GA nomination. If there is then i may have a different opinion on it as the article deserves that status.Blethering Scot 19:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is two for the track list, and five against: Ssilvers, Jack1956, Cassianto, SandyGeorgia and BrianBoulton (the last two stated this on the Peer Review). The last three of these are frequent contributors at FAC, and all have been involved with high quality musical theatre articles before. It is a very clear consensus. So the redundant and tangential information should now be removed from the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssilvers: Are you meaning all the people that you posted talk page notices asking them to read the info you had posted on the talk page and then comment. Thats essentially looking for people to take your side, i could of done the same, which makes the consensus on shaky ground and thats not on. Your yet to explain or come to my talk page re accusations and why you went to all these peoples talk pages. In regard to the consensus, one posted after i made that comment which if you looked at the timestamps you would be aware, but you never do. Also if you create the sub article to a good standard then i will withdraw my objection, you suggested it so you should do it. If not then given you asked all these editors to comment specifically then the discussion should be left open to allow normal neutral editors to comment as this does not effect an ongoing GA.Blethering Scot 21:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssilvers: I've now asked you umpteen times to explain yourself yet everytime without fail you ignore it. You lead the discussion with the talkpage notices you made and that's not on. The discussion should of been allowed to continue following that. I've had enough of your antics but you certainly should be explaining your actions. Blethering Scot 12:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BS, I am following this Talk page, so please stop "pinging" me. Do you have a question about the content of this article? If so, please state it clearly and concisely, and try to be WP:Civil. I do not wish to post on your talk page, and I will not answer your repeated personal attacks and demands. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts about the article at this point

[edit]

Tony and Blethering Scot have been hard at work on the article. Tony wants to move it forward to GA-class, so here are my thoughts about the article at this point:

  • Overall: See the Article structure guidelines from the Musicals Project for some ideas about possible expansion of the article and technical points. I agree that a WP:Peer review would also be very helpful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead. The Lead will need to be reviewed when we are done expanding the article to see if we give an adequate overview of all the material in the article. Also, I generally don't put citations in the Lead, where the information is expanded upon in the body below, but instead put the refs down in the body of the article where the full fact is discussed.
  • Background. There could be more about the writing process. The show's website has information and links that could help fill out this section. Also, is there any further information about the casting process? Why were these stars used, and how were they courted? I know that some of them took part in readings, and I imagine that BroadwayWorld and/or Playbill reported on the genesis of the musical periodically as they usually do for Broadway-bound works with high-profile creators.
    • I have dug pretty hard and do not think casting is PD for this show.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did you read the Study Guide on the musical's website? I think there is more there for the background section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I assume you mean the Show Guide. I will review it today.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have looked at it and of the 36 pages, 2 two-page articles seem to have encyclopedic content. However, I think their interview of their own team counts as an WP:SPS. We are suppose to summarize content that has an independent editorial review process. However, the interviewees, interviewers and editors are all part of the Kinky Boots team. The other article that compares the differences between the musical and the true story is probably a bit more objective and an SPS might still be a suitable source. Do you agree?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • TonyTheTigerSPS is ok for noncontroversial material under certain circumstances -- see the next paragraph under WP:SPS called WP:SELFPUB. This guideline says: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: (1) the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; (2) it does not involve claims about third parties; (3) it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; (4) there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and (5) the article is not based primarily on such sources." So, yes, I am certain that you can use both articles, unless you find a non self-published article about the same topic that supersedes or contradicts it. This is the exact situation for this sort of information, to the extent that it fills out the published sources with information about the production that only the insiders at the show would know. Of course, I am not saying that you should add self-serving information, just actual facts about the production and how and why production decisions were made. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[left]I sort of disagree about whether the SPS is usable for production details without an independent editor to verify the credibility of the stories. An editor in the field of theatre would winnow out tall tales from excruciating detail. I have no idea what is believable/true/a stretch in terms of production details and without an independent editorial review I don't think I am going to use that source. I don't view production details as simple facts. They are details that can occur behind closed doors, in the dark of the night and at other times when no one is around. Plot details are facts that don't need WP:ICs because they occur in front of the audience. No WP editor should attempt to judge the credibility of production details and determine what is important. An interviewee might tell a tall tale that is good for business for his show. An independent editor might recognize such a tall tale and remove it from print. Without an independent editorial process, the interview is not a WP:RS. I am pretty sure if we asked at the RS discussion boards there would be agreement on this. Plot comparisons between the musical and another version or the true story are more objective. I only think one of the two is usable.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, all we do all day, as Wikipedia editors, is judge our sources and choose the best material from the best sources. The entertainment press laps up and prints any stupid thing that theatre people want to say in interviews, or just copies verbatim from producers' press releases, without any sort of verification or research at all. I just quoted to you our guideline: information about the topic of the article that is written by the producers is 'specifically authorized by WP guidance under these very circumstances. Of course you wouldn't take anything from the show guide that appears to you to be implausible or dubious in any way. We would state, of course, that we got the particular details from the show's official website "show guide". If you don't want to use it, and you haven't seen adequate information about how the casting, costumes, staging, etc. of the show elsewhere, then I guess you should not bring this article to GA until a book is written about the musical by a well-known theatre writer. In my opinion, this article does not have adequate background and production details to satisfy GA criterion 3 "Broad in its coverage". -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are the expert on all things theater and I don't really think this is a great source. Why am I the one who has to go through this article. Do you expect that I will know what content is credible or not?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to do anything – we're all just volunteers! You have done a great job bringing this article up to a solid B-class; it's considerably better than most articles about musicals on Wikipedia. Personally, I do not think that *new* musicals should be brought to GA, because not enough has been written about them by people other than critics who are trying to meet a deadline and "entertainment" media interviewers whose job is to promote the Broadway season. For one thing, the script is not available. But Ritchie asked me to comment, and you were working hard on the article, and so I'm trying to help out. If I had any time to really work on an article, I'd prefer to work on Pirates and the other G&S operas. If you want to let this musical rest for a few years at the B level, I think that would be preferable, and we can revisit it once it has been written about by theatre historians. Geoffrey Block's Enchanted Evenings: The Broadway Musical from Show Boat to Sondheim was written in 2004. John Bush Jones wrote Our Musicals, Ourselves in 2003. They are part of the last generation of books on American musicals. So, I suggest focusing on important musicals written before then, so that there is adequate commentary to refer to. What about bringing West Side Story, Fiddler on the Roof, My Fair Lady, The Fantasticks, Hello, Dolly!, Grease or A Chorus Line to GA? Eventually, today's new musicals will have more written about them by reliable sources. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what I will be doing 10 years from now, but in the next 10 days I will add stuff from that article and probably renominate this at GA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[left]I started reading this it is the hair designer, costume designer and set designer. I have taken a lot of stage works to GA without ever delving into hair or costume design which is two-thirds of this interview. I don't even really speak the language of these designers. I don't see an article as deficient without hair and costume design and I don't understand that stuff. This thing is already a lot closer to GA than you are giving it credit for. Unless there are issues with the PR, I am just going to nominate this thing.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, I don't think we care that much about hair, but the name of the show is "Kinky Boots", and it is about (surprise!)Kinky Boots; also, the costumes were nominated for various awards, so voters must have thought they were good. I find it hard to imagine that none of the reviewers wrote about the relationship between the boots and the drag queen theme in the show. Songs in the show concern the boots, the fact that Lola insists upon red boots, and the designing of the boots for the Milan footwear show. It must have been of interest to at least some reviewers how the boots and drag outfits in the show were designed; in the finale of the show, just about everyone wears kinky boots, and there are spectacular international outfits that match the boots. Note that the original story on which this show is based had nothing to do with Lola - the character was added for the movie and is of paramount importance in the musical. Regarding the book of the show: how does Fierstein use Lola's sexuality and choice of profession to make his points about the relationship between Lola and Charlie, Lola and her father, and the key theme about "accepting people as they are", which we barely discuss? Regarding PR, don't think we have answered all the PR concerns. Can you indicate, with respect to the ones that don't say "done" yet, whether you think they have been resolved? Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Productions. In the sentence of the first paragraph of the productions section that is devoted to the past awards of the creative and design team, the part of the sentence that follows the colon could go in a footnote. The section lacks enough description of the production itself. For example, how do the kinky boots themselves figure in the costume design? Having seen the show, I know that they are important in several scenes, and there are even songs about them (e.g., "The Sex Is in the Heel"). The study guide on the show's website has interviews of the designers: http://digital.turn-page.com/i/131604. Is there any new information on the box office? It is hard to understand why we talk about July and no other months.
  • Synopsis - I would put this above the productions section (see the guidelines referred to above). That keeps all the "show" information together, and all the "productions" info together. Plus, most readers want to see the synopsis first. Also, the song titles of the major songs in a musical are normally placed in the Synopsis where the song appears in the story.
  • Musical numbers - Should have n-dashes, rather than m-dashes.
  • Musical analysis - Tony added a sentence from the New York Times about the music. There should be probably a whole paragraph analyzing the music, as I believe that more reviewers mentioned it - is it pop, rock, folk rock, a mix of genres, or what?
  • Textual analysis and themes. Some of these, such as the economic parallel to today, are hinted at, but there could certainly be more discussion of the themes in the text. For examples, see Carousel (musical) and Hair (musical). The show guide at the official website also discusses the show's themes.
    • I am trying to figure out what is required at GA. Whenever I nominate a play or musical at GA, invariably I get pointed to the 78KB Hair (musical), which is about 3 times as long as the average play or musical at GA. I am now noticing that the vast majority of play and musical GAs are less than 25KB. I am wondering if something like American Idiot (musical) (21.3 B) isn't more like what we are shooting for and whether Love in Several Masques (14KB), Keating! (14.5KB) and The Indian Princess (play) (16.8KB) are exemplary. The only other play or musical that I see that is even half as long is Wicked (musical) (59.8KB).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hair is a long article because it has such interesting themes and was an iconic musical milestone with lots of interesting books and articles written about it, numerous interesting productions worldwide over the decades, and it was an important part of the 1960s social revolution in arts, politics, etc. But, even though more recent works are not going to have all that history, the Hair article serves as excellent "checklist" of ideas about what might be missing in a musicals article. We also have a number of excellent FA-articles in the musical theatre area, and you can see the list of them here. Looking quickly at American Idiot, it has little or no analysis of the book, lyrics or music, and few images. There is an entire section about a film adaptation that may never be made, and another section about a documentary film that grossed $26,311. It has a detailed monthly box office and attendance chart; the last line of this, showing the totals, contains all the box-office information of any encyclopedic interest. The article has complete touring cast lists that contain no notable actors. In short, it is light on analytical and encyclopedic content and long on cruft Love in Several Masques, on the other hand, contains lots of analytical content, although it is not that similar to this sort of musical, and it has a skimpy plot section with meta information instead of plot. Keating! is a nice little article. I haven't had time to read it closely, but it seems to have a lot of good content, without bloated tables and such. The Indian Princess looks good, too. Wicked, although it has lots of good information, also has lots of fancruft, including numerous overgrown tables, a twice-too-long plot summary and other unruly sections. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Critical reception. Have all of the Broadway reviews been surveyed to make sure that all the major critics are covered, including the positive, negative and lukewarm ones? Reviews also often include more information for the analysis sections described above.
  • Recordings - the cast album should be moved down to a "recordings" section. A track listing should not be given, since that would be redundant with the musical numbers list, which already notes clearly which songs are not included on the cast album (the timings of the songs on the album is not important to this article, although it would be relevant to an article about the album). None of the FA articles about musicals contain a track listing of the cast album, because the article is about the show, not about just the original production and its recording. If the album is notable, for example, if it wins a grammy award, then it could have its own article, where the full track listing can be given.
    • I kind of missed out on what the edit war was. From what I can tell, it was about whether the cast album should have its own article or whether it should be part of this article. Please tell me where we stand on this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I deleted the track listing as redundant. BS wants it in. See the comments at the Peer review. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • At least tell the whole story User:Ssilvers. He suggested creating a sub article. I disagree with that as we would have to link that into this page. Sub articles should be created when the main page is to big and needs splitting, and i think its highly likely that it will end up being merged back at some point. Yes a sub article would be notable, and I've found more sources to show it however its just an unnecessary article. Ssilvers hasn't really given a valid reason in my view nor is he willing to discuss anything with me, and I've asked him too. In addition we need to split this into sections its a bloody mess.Blethering Scot 20:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • A track listing is encyclopedic content. IMO, It should be here if a separate article is not going to be created. Musical song lists are different from cast recording track listings. There will be redundancy in titles, but track listings describe song length and album order, which is additional content.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I believe that the track listing is unnecessary and needs to be removed as the article already has a list of musical numbers which informs readers which numbers are on the album and which ones are not. Also, I find it rather confusing to have two infoboxes in the article; shouldn't one be sufficient? Jack1956 (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • It adds information that the musical numbers section does not including song length. Tony sums it up perfectly why its encyclopaedic content and relevant. The only way it should be removed is if a separate sub article is created, however thats a silly move as this article is more than big enough to accommodate both. There is enough example of it being included in an article to not including that makes it an editorial choice. Creating that sub article will cause additional problems.Blethering Scot 20:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images - The article lacks enough images. At a minimum, it seems like the article needs an image of Lauper, and there are plenty of free ones. The article could use a photo of Porter and/or Sands and/or Mitchell, if there are any free ones; or an image of the cast at, say, Broadway Cares, or some outdoor performance; or ... can you think of anything creative? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awards - [Update: Awards are currently mentioned in five four places:
  • In the infobox
  • In the LEAD
  • In the photo captions (I removed these)
  • In the productions section
  • And twice in the Awards section, where there is first a lengthy narrative discussion of them and then they are laid out again in a table that has lots of white space (I wonder if it can be compressed at all). As I have noted before, the Outer Critics Circle awards and Drama League awards are minor awards, as compared with the Tonys and Drama Desk awards. In my opinion, once a show has won Tony awards, and also Drama Desk awards, these less prestigious awards are effectively superseded and no longer of encyclopedic interest: In 10 years, no one will care how many Drama League nominations the show received, so it is really symptomatic of WP:Recentism. See the Article structure guidelines (Awards section) from the Musicals Project. Alternatively, we could do what was done here. See WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDIARY. Note that newspaper articles written after the Drama Desk Awards come out do not mention the earlier awards. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP is a tertiary resource with the responsibility of summarizing the secondary sources. Both the Outer Critic Circle and Drama League awards are widely-cited because at the time they are announced they are barometers for the more prominent awards. Due to how widely they are mentioned in the press, I think we are almost required to mention them once we acknowledge that we know about them. I just don't know of a way to justify removing these two given how widely cited they are. We have gotten rid of stuff like the Astaire Awards and someone removed the Artios Awards from the table.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree pretty much with all of that Tony. But again Silvers sub articles are not the solution to all problems and is merely creating others. If the article was of substantial size then would agree thats the best solution, however the article is not long at all.Blethering Scot 19:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these thoughts are helpful to the editors going forward. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
An independent per review has been requested as thats what we need totally independent advice. There are several parts of that which are massively incorrect especially the last section, and several of the others have already been raised by myself are mentioned at GA and at peer review.Blethering Scot 22:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ssilvers comment about requesting peer review was added to the text after a per review had already been requested. This is getting silly, unhelpful and to be personally frank disruptive to everyone.Blethering Scot 22:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Assume good faith. I am simply agreeing with you that it is a good idea. Sheesh. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ssilvers Assume good faith stopped when you failed to address your own claim about bold revert discuss which i had enacted, you edit warred, failed to self revert, and made further allegations which you could not substantiate. You've been asked here and on your talk page to explain that allegation but you choose not to. If you agreed re peer review you would of just added that under my comment re requesting per review that you agreed but you never. Blethering Scot 22:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, what allegation are you talking about? BTW, I would appreciate if you would not post on my Talk page. Also, have you initiated a WP:Peer review? If so, you should put a link to it at the top of this talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You accused me of being disruptive by enacting Bold Revert Discuss, you failed to explain your actions in making the article unstable by edit warring outside that policy. And quite frankly i would appreciate that once you reply (thats if you have the balls to) that you stay the hell away from me. Your an influence that i will not tolerate anymore. Throwing accusations about and telling others to assume good faith when you don't to them is bloody unreal. Blethering Scot 23:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean the big review box thats on top of the article thats been there since well what time was that oh 21:57 UK time. Its now 23:06 UK Time.Blethering Scot 23:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Sorry, I missed the box. Thanks, Blethering Scot, for initiating the review. I do not believe that I ever called you "disruptive", but you do seem to be very hostile. I'm merely trying to help improve this article, and I have spent a considerable amount of time to give a thorough review above. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed off the above off-topic; please focus on article improvement. Comment on content, not the editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

What do these images add that cannot be done through text alone. Given they don't portray anything to do with the production they are essentially useless, they just don't add anything, it was mentioned in GA review and i agree with that.Blethering Scot 17:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also there has to be a better more appropriate photo of Lauper than that one. Its pretty bad.Blethering Scot 17:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These images portray the creators of the musical, and they are free images. I think that helps the reader put a face to the name. Wikipedia's guidelines say: "Because the Wikipedia project is in a position to offer multimedia learning to its audience, images are an important part of any article's presentation. Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal, especially on pages which have few visuals." I agree that if we had a picture of Lauper, say, meeting with Fierstein and Mitchell that would be optimal, but we don't, and we won't, so a recent portrait of each is the best we can do and should be in the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They should however add something text cant portray. However If they are to be included then we must seek the optimal positioning which isn't the case at the moment and put in decent images, the one of Lauper is of poor quality and not relevant, i feel this likely to be brought back up at GA however lets get a better image or not include at all.Blethering Scot 18:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The replacement Lauper image is worse still slightly grainy but its side on. Really feel we shouldn't have an image for the sake of an image. Remove it and take time to find a good quality one, better that than rushing in.Blethering Scot 18:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having reviewed a number of articles for GA I think it would be helpful to mention here that the quality of images cannot be a matter for the GA reviewer: the relevant criteria are (i) "images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content" and (ii) "images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions." It is no part of a GA reviewer's brief to interfere with the choice of one relevant image over another. This article looks to me to have potential for GA candidacy, and I'll keep an eye open for it in the lists in due course. – Tim riley (talk) 08:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But as editors we do and it was mentioned in GA. There is no need for a photo for a photo's sake and if the image is terrible it shouldn't be there until an appropriate one was found. There has to be better images than either of those twoBlethering Scot 15:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As to your preference for one image over another, I make no comment. If I am to be eligible to review this article at GAN, should it get there, I must not get involved in any to-ing and fro-ing here. I merely point out that though a GA reviewer (or anybody else) is at liberty to comment on the quality of images, it is not a relevant ground for passing or failing at GAN. Tim riley (talk) 18:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seen as no ones interested in the quality of the photo or actually discussing it ill go ahead and change it.Blethering Scot 18:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ssilvers above that the images add to the article and aid the reader in showing the creators of the musical. He has moved the images to a better position in the article and this should be allowed to stand. The use of the images will not in my opinion affect any GAN. Jack1956 (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack1956: All i have noted is that it was brought up at the GA, that is all. In regards to the images themselves they were of poor quality, one was changed by Tony and i changed the other. In regards to placement the images have been moved several times in last few days and to be honest they will likely be moved again. Do i think they add anything, no i don't, but as long as they are fairly good quality images and well placed then i don't see a problem going forward.Blethering Scot 20:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Metaphor

[edit]

This is a metaphor: "Everything that I do is an illusion of how I’d like to look—not how I actually look. That’s why I get along with drag queens, because I am one." I think that Lauper is trying to say something here (although she did not say that she meant it in connection with the show), but the statement that I just removed from the article did not capture its essense and was misleading. I don't think it's really helpful, but if you think that it's essential, I suppose we could say something like "Lauper gets along well with drag queens, considering herself a metaphoric member of the group." -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What we have is an award-winning broadway play that centers on a drag queen. I think it is imperative for us to include the fact that two of the most important creative influences on the show could be regarded as drag queen experts.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but this source does not support the idea that she is an expert. By all means, if you have a clear statement from a reliable source (preferably by a person unconnected with the show) that says that Lauper was an expert on, or had lots of experience with, drag queen culture, I have no objection to including it - though I don't agree that it's essential. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. we have Fierstein who by having won multiple drag queen related Tonys is an expert and we have Lauper who identifies with drag queens on some level. Shouldn't we at least say she identifies with drag queens on some level. Do we need a separate source that says the drag queen subculture accepts Lauper as one of their own or something?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be OK to use this source for the proposition that "Lauper also feels an affinity with drag queens". How's that? We need to be careful not to overstate what our sources say. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is less significant than what the sources say. I think identifying with them is stronger than feeling an affinity and I think that is what the source is saying.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote

[edit]

I'm no expert on hatnotes, but my understanding was that it is not appropriate to have a hatnote for a title that's already disambiguated. Otherwise all musicals that are based on a notable work or that have an album with its own article would have a hatnote like this, and as far as I know, none of them do. The film and recording are already linked and cross referenced within the article. Can anyone other than Tony and me comment please? -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I'd see that would warrant the hatnote is to distinguish the stage musical from the film. As you mentioned, that's already done in the intro; we don't have a hatnote for articles like Chicago (musical). I'd say we don't need the hatnote. —C.Fred (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The album is a product of the musical, so there is nothing "ambiguous" to disambiguate, and it should not be in the hat note (which is not intended to be a mini-"see also" section). A link in "See also" is sufficient, so I've removed it from the hatnote. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The album is already cross-referenced in the "Recordings" section, so it should not go also under "See also". Also, the film is not a musical film, so I think the remainder of the hatnote should also be deleted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Kinky Boots (musical)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 12:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will review. Beginning first read-through of the article as nominated. More soonest. Tim riley (talk) 12:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see the article is getting a fair bit of new work today. I'll hold fire till things have settled down. Tim riley (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This nomination reignited interest in squeezing the last refinements out of the PR. I think by the end of today most issues will be worked out. If not remaining issues are not that big relative to the entire article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fine. I'll look in again during the weekend, and start work in earnest if all is bedded down. Interesting about the reignition of the PR. I had long thought it good practice to close a PR before going on to GA, but now I see there are advantages in not doing so. More anon. Tim riley (talk) 11:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Honestly I did not expect you to pick up the review right away. If I had, I would have closed down the PR. I think the coast is clear now although the article talk is still somewhat active.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think you can shut down the PR. There is only one open item on it, as far as I can see, and the point is a rather obscure one about the movie music. I find the point theoretically interesting, but I agree that is certainly not essential to address it for GA. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Im not sure it is that obscure as the movie this is based on does feature a score. There is obviously a reason they choose not to go down the jukebox musical route and there are plenty of sources going into why they choose the movie, I'm sure the music must be mentioned somewhere. Not that i think the point would ever stop the article being a GA, just that its a valid topic for the article to have in it.Blethering Scot 19:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right ho! Shall begin first proper read-through tomorrow. Looking forward to it. Shall report back during the week. Tim riley (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to nominator and other interested editors for my delay. RL is keeping me away from detailed WP work this week. I hope to be free from Friday p.m. and will assuredly put this at the top of my to-do list. Sorry for straining your patience meanwhile. Tim riley (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't get to this today and don't know when you will, you could just put it back in the queue for another nominator. There is a December Backlog Drive and someone will likely take this up pretty quickly.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I now have time firmly set aside to start work, but I still see significant changes going on in the article. A great lump of 600 + bytes appeared just today on what at first sight seems a peripheral matter. If this doesn't settle down I think I must fail the GAN for instability. I wonder if the various authors might be best advised to withdraw the GAN and agree on a text before resubmitting it. Tim riley (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of WP:WIAGA, instability means edit warring. It does not include upkeep of an article with an evolving history. Adding an event that happened this week to the article is not in the remotest sense considered instability for a GAN. Can you imagine articles of movers and shakers of the world ever getting to GA status if keeping them up to date counted as instability. (FYI, look at the date — April 2008 — John McCain achieved GA. That was during the heat of the 2008 election cycle. I am sure you understand how much that article was evolving at the time.) If you see an issue that should be reported for WP:3RR, then instability applies.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tony that the editing about the Thanksgiving issue does not constitute instability, even though I think that the mention of trending on Twitter is not encyclopedic, especially because the trending was caused by people opining that the transvestite theme of the numbers sung was inappropriate for a television broadcast aimed at families with young children. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. in terms of whether the Thanksgiving issue was a peripheral matter please note this page viewership spike, which was the only reason it was added. On the talk page there is debate about its removal and your opinion will probably decide the issue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. I have read and reread the existing text. The article, in my present judgment, meets all the GA criteria. From the outset my opinion was that it meets criteria 1, 2, 4 and 6, and I accept the editors' assurance that it meets criterion 5 as well. It clearly meets criterion 3a; I was worried about 3b when looking in earlier, but the move of the awards info to its own article reflects the summary style guideline.

It is my usual practice to spell-check a GAN article and also to make any suggestions that occur to me for improving the prose. No problem on either front here. The criterion that "the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct" means what it says, and I deplore it when GA reviewers presume to tell nominators what they ought to have written even though this criterion is, as here, fully met. If I had a view about the Thanksgiving matter it would be, in my view, ultra vires to insist on my view here: does the page "address the main aspects of the topic" or not? Yes it does. Does it go "into unnecessary detail"? I cannot see that there is a case to be made to that effect.

I shall have one last perusal in the morning and then, barring the unforeseen, complete the formalities tomorrow. Parenthetically, The editors who have brought the page to GAN will forgive me, I hope, for saying that I shan't be rushing to book for any London revival of this piece – to each his own. Tim riley (talk) 00:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After all the introspection that we editors have had with this article, I am not surprised you don't have many specifics left for us to address. I am wondering if that means I should take this to WP:FAC.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Shall add to GA page and amend article talk page accordingly. Tim riley (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update on Ss comments

[edit]

Now that most matters are settled, and there is only one small open item remaining on the PR page, here are my remaining comments:

  • Background. There could be more about the writing process. The show's website has information and links that could help fill out this section, including a 36-page "Show Guide" with interviews. (See WP:SELFPUB re: how to use non-controversial self-published sources). Is there any further information about the casting process? Why were these stars used, and how were they courted? I imagine that BroadwayWorld and/or Playbill reported on the genesis of the musical periodically as they usually do for Broadway-bound works with high-profile creators. How does Fierstein use Lola's sexuality and choice of profession to make his points about the relationship between Lola and Charlie, Lola and her father, and the key theme about "accepting people as they are", which we barely discuss?
  • Productions. The section lacks enough description of the production itself. For example, how do the kinky boots themselves figure in the costume design? Having seen the show, I know that they are important in several scenes. The costumes were nominated for various awards, so voters must have thought they were good. I find it hard to imagine that none of the reviews or feature articles wrote about the relationship between the boots and the drag queen or economic themes in the show. Songs in the show concern the boots (e.g., "The Sex Is in the Heel"), the fact that Lola insists upon red boots, and the designing of the boots for the Milan footwear show. It must have been of interest to at least some reviewers how the boots and drag outfits in the show were designed; in the finale of the show, just about everyone wears kinky boots, and there are spectacular international outfits that match the boots. Note that the original true story on which this show is based had nothing to do with Lola - the character was added for the movie and is of paramount importance in the musical. The Show Guide on the show's website has interviews of the designers. See GA criterion 3 "Broad in its coverage".
  • Synopsis - The song titles of the major songs in a musical should bey placed in the Synopsis where the song appears in the story. Unfortunately, the script is not available.
  • Textual analysis and themes. Some of these, such as (1) the economic parallels to today, (2) accepting people as they are, (3) the influence of their fathers on these two men, and (4) how two such contrasting men are really not so different, all need more discussion. For examples, see Carousel (musical) and Hair (musical). The show guide at the official website also discusses the show's themes, and Fierstein and Mitchell talk about them in interviews that I've seen, and reviews discuss them.
  • Critical reception. Have all of the Broadway reviews been surveyed to make sure that all the major critics are covered, including the positive, negative and lukewarm ones?
  • Images - The article could still use more images, such as a photo of Porter and/or Sands and/or Mitchell, if there are any free ones; or an image of the cast at, say, Broadway Cares, or some outdoor performance; or ... can anyone think of anything creative?
  • Awards - See below. [appears to be resolved now?]
  • Ambiguous dates in refs - Many of the references in this article contain ambiguous dates. These need to be expanded to unambiguous dates, such as: November 10, 2013. -- Ssilvers (talk)

Awards table

[edit]

Awards are currently mentioned in four (or five, depending on how you count) places:

  1. In the infobox
  2. In the LEAD
  3. In the productions section
  4. And twice in the Awards section, where there is first a narrative discussion of them, and then they are laid out again in a table with the same information. This is far too much about awards. See "Response" at the Musicals' Project article structure guidelines. I suggest that we do what was done here, moving the table to its own article and cross referencing it in the main article. I could do that if it is agreed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible to do a collapsable table? If not, I think it should be moved, it is longer than one screen length at my resolution, meaning we could lose readers who do not realize that is not the end of the text of the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I think that trending on Twitter is WP:Recentism. But it is nice that the parade appearance and the (overwhelmingly negative) internet reaction to it did, at least, briefly increase interest in the Wikipedia article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what the reviewer says.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
N.B. The content was added due to this veiwership spike.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind the article saying that there was a Thanksgiving Day Parade performance, but I think the information about the trending on Twitter is not encyclopedic, because the trend had nothing to do with the quality of the show, but merely with the network's choice to include songs dealing with transvestism on a broadcast aimed at families with young children. So actually what trended was not the show, but NBC. BTW, I think that there is nothing wrong with children seeing men dressed in flamboyant/feminine outfits, but that's what the bulk of the twitter comments were about. In any case, it is not of importance *to the musical* that this broadcast, for one brief moment in time, provoked angry or unhappy comments. However, if, say, the NY Times or Time Magazine writes an article about how this has some kind of historical importance, that would be something. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth mentioning the performance and why it caused controversy however I don't feel trending on twitter is of encyclopaedic note.Blethering Scot 02:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't oppose that change. If anyone wants to word it with the emphasis as suggested feel free. I understand we don't want an account of each trending topic on WP.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FA issues

[edit]

While things are still fresh in people's minds, what are the issues that were not substantial enough to stand in the way of a GA that may need to be resolved for an FA?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ss comments

[edit]
  • Background. There could be more about the writing process. Is there any further information about the casting process? Why were these stars used, and how were they courted? I imagine that BroadwayWorld and/or Playbill reported on the genesis of the musical periodically as they usually do for Broadway-bound works with high-profile creators. How does Fierstein use Lola's sexuality and choice of profession to make his points about the relationship between Lola and Charlie, Lola and her father, and the key theme about "accepting people as they are", which we barely discuss?
  • Productions. The section lacks enough description of the production itself. For example, how do the kinky boots themselves figure in the costume design? Having seen the show, I know that they are important in several scenes. The costumes were nominated for various awards, so voters must have thought they were good. I find it hard to imagine that none of the reviews or feature articles wrote about the relationship between the boots and the drag queen or economic themes in the show. Songs in the show concern the boots (e.g., "The Sex Is in the Heel"), the fact that Lola insists upon red boots, and the designing of the boots for the Milan footwear show. It must have been of interest to at least some reviewers how the boots and drag outfits in the show were designed; in the finale of the show, just about everyone wears kinky boots, and there are spectacular international outfits that match the boots. Note that the original true story on which this show is based had nothing to do with Lola - the character was added for the movie and is of paramount importance in the musical. The Show Guide on the show's website has interviews of the costume designer.
  • Synopsis - The song titles of the major songs in a musical should be placed in the Synopsis where the song appears in the story. Someone very familiar with the script (or who has seen the show multiple times) would need to help with this.
  • Textual analysis and themes. Some of these, such as (1) the economic parallels to today, (2) accepting people as they are, (3) the influence of their fathers on these two men, and (4) how two such contrasting men are really not so different, all need more discussion. For examples, see Carousel (musical), Hamlet and Hair (musical). Fierstein and Mitchell talk about the show's themes in interviews, and perhaps some of the reviews discuss them.
  • Critical reception. Have all of the Broadway reviews been surveyed to make sure that all the major critics are covered, including the positive, negative and lukewarm ones?
    • Many reviews added.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is worse now than it was. I have tried to trim the WP:QUOTEFARM. Obviously, this fan has searched carefully for all the good reviews and, with respect to one or two that I had read, he has misrepresented the content of the review by cherry-picking quotes. Plus, he had some of the reviews in there twice. I am confident that if you searched carefully, you would find more negative reviews. But now it just looks crufty and promotional. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just reviewed Schindler's List. This is one of the greatest movies of all time and it actually had more negative criticism than positive when the review started. The changes from the review added a ton of positive stuff that was omitted making the previous article almost equally balanced between positive and negative. This is the Tony-Award winning musical. It is O.K. if it has a lot more positive content than negative content. That is not promotion. Not every article should be 50/50.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is as if you did not read or understand my reply at all. Sigh. In fact the NY Post called the show "likable but heavy handed ... as if from a broken pipe." So the article misuses the review. The Associated Press noted that "the second half is almost completely unnecessary, the English accents are laughable and the footwear puns are relentless." EW said that without Porter the show "might otherwise seem like a club-ready mash-up". You're not paying attention to reality. As usual, you are dazzled the promotional awards that are handed out by the industry to itself, instead of actually reading the reviews and trying to present a neutral view of them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Apologies. As short as your response was, I responded to only the beginning of it. Damn, I am lazy. Thanks for your time. Can you help to better summarize the newly-added reviews to reflect their true content?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • OK, done. You are gracious, as always. I think we can safely say that this section is done. However, if you decide to go towards FA, you will want to read all these reviews carefully, and the other ones listed here, as many of the critics discuss the themes of the show, and you will be able to pick out some useful content about that. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images - The article could still use more images, such as a photo of Porter and/or Sands and/or Mitchell, if there are any free ones; or an image of the cast at, say, Broadway Cares, or some outdoor performance; or ... can anyone think of anything creative?
  • General - See WP:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deterioration of article due to cruft

[edit]

Please resist cruft. Over-emphasis on the supposed "rivalry" with Matilda makes the article look like it was written by fanboys. Additional repetition of the awards, especially the lesser awards, impairs the quality of the article, as discussed ad nauseum above. There is plenty of box office stuff now. After the show closes we can revisit box office, and see how it did. The WP:OR about British musicals over the past 33 years, besides being entirely OR and far off topic, did not even succeed in making the point it purported to make. We need to focus the article on the most important things: analysis of the content and themes of the show. In addition, writing that have been "some mixed" reviews is nonsense. There have been some favorable, some unfavorable and some middling reviews. Altogether, that means that the reviews have been mixed (i.e., not ovewhelmingly positive or negative). Tony, please don't let the quality of this article deteriorate by letting people add cruft in areas that are thoroughly covered already. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Kinky boots

[edit]

A move request is taking place at the page above that could effect this one. Thanks. Blethering Scot 18:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Kinky Boots (musical). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kinky Boots (musical). 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) 04:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kinky Boots (musical). 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 12:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Kinky Boots (musical). 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) 01:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opening paragraph

[edit]

"Charlie and Lola discover that they are not so different after all." - absent even so very little as a statement that they were particularly different in the first place, this sentence has an aimed-and-missed generic/boilerplate quality... it's a rather aesthetically bland sentence anyway, but. Schissel | Sound the Note! 23:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the book is mostly inspired my true events. If someone thinks otherwise, you are welcome to revert.(: Saminhil (talk) 09:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of productions

[edit]

Please, stop deleting non-English language official productions from the chart. JoshuaPers (talk) 06:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pronouns

[edit]

Is the synopsis correct in giving Lola's pronouns as she/her? Lola would appear to be a professional female impersonator, and not a transgender person. Jess Cully (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kinky_Boots_(musical)&oldid=1252171874"