Talk:Kinky Boots (musical)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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

I will review

Lead

The article contains 10K of prose, so a two paragraph lead is about right
The 2008 conception date (and its associated source) is not mentioned in the body.
- Done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Background

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

Chicago and Broadway

"Jerry Mitchell" should be "Mitchell" per WP:LASTNAME. Also don't need a semicolon after this
- Mitchell fixed. Semicolons can conjoin independent phrases, IIRC, if you don't want to split them into separate sentences.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd probably swap the first two paragraphs around around - the second talks about general production staff, while the first goes on to specific dates
- done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The New York Times noted that in the 2012–13 season most of the new Broadway musicals were "inspired by movies or books"." - why is this relevant to this article?
- Why wouldn't trends in theatre be relevant to a production. We are trying to explain why this was a success and showing it is in keeping with the trends of the day is a relevant piece of information.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I also added another source about an additional element of the production's timeliness.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

US National tour

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

The plot summary seems a little over-detailed. It's the biggest section in the article and takes too much prominence. I think it needs to be chopped down.
- Above you said to look at Hair_(musical). See Hair_(musical)#Synopsis.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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]

I agree with Tony - the plot summary is about right; the rest of the article needs to grow to match it. Most WP readers are particularly interested in the plot summary. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Music

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

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

"Los Angeles Times theater critic Charles McNulty critiquing" - "criticising" is probably a better word
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find the quotation "cheesy commercial mess" in the LA Times source that claims its from
- That article is a two page article. See the second page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awards and nominations

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

Checklinks reports one dead link from miramax.com

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

Images

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

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

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]