Talk:Stage works of Paul Goodman

Stage works of Paul Goodman (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 2 April 2024 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Stage works of Paul Goodman has been listed as one of the Language and literature 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.
Review: August 8, 2023. (Reviewed version).

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Expand from Widmer; add short reviews of Three Plays and Tragedy & Comedy

Article title

There isn't a great convention for this type of split, so I went with "Stage works of" to follow the parallel format of "Poetry of" and "Works of", which are already in wide use. I found this preferable to Paul Goodman stage works. I also found stage works preferable to plays (which they are mostly, except for a musical and some better described as verse dramas). czar 00:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stage works of Paul Goodman/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 15:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. Sorry for the long wait! If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article meets the GA standard! Congrats to you and anyone else who may have worked on it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	As is my usual practice, I have made minor tweaks myself to save us both time. If there are any you do not agree with, just let me know. Ok, the Faustina drama: Malina's lover was in therapy with Goodman, and Goodman + the lover had an affair? The sentence isn't very clear. Does the lover have a name? "After Bovasso" - After Bovasso what? Does this mean she only did the closing speech once? Did he receive his PhD in 1940 or 1954? The sentence isn't clear. Issues addressed, pass.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass, no issues here.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Sources are all reliable academic sources or reputable journalistic pieces. Pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	None found, pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Nothing found by Earwig, hold for manual spot-check. Nothing found by manual spot-check, pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Can we be sure that the list of stage productions is complete/comprehensive? If it isn't, it might be best removed altogether. I tweaked the heading per your comment below, pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No areas of obvious overdetail, will double-check on prose review.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues, pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass, no issues there.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	I like the dust jacket images, I didn't know about that exception! Those images seem fine, as well as the statue. However, I'm not convinced that the two images by Charles Rotmil were properly released in a way that means we can use them, nor do I see any direct evidence that the Bavasso image is CC0. Did the Village Voice release their whole photo archive at some point? Please let me know your thoughts on these three. Issues addressed, pass.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Well chosen and well captioned. Pass.
	7. Overall assessment.

Replies

Thanks for the review! re: images, it was a small epiphany when I realized that some book jacket (promotional) images were freely licensed. For the Living Theatre portraits, I'm inclined to grandfather them in per Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Early uploads policy but I also wouldn't contest it if they were put up for deletion. Bavasso is a crop of File:Julie Bavasso 1956.JPG, which has links showing it was a promotional image published without a copyright mark. czar 02:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Bavasso image looks good. As to the Living Theatre portraits, I'm not going to nominate them for deletion, but I regret to say that they should probably be removed from this article for it to get to GA - I don't like to have that kind of copyright uncertainty for articles at the GA standard. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done czar 14:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar just a few things to fix and then we should be about there! Let me know when you'll be able to address them. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Ganesha811. Clarified the above in prose. The major productions list is reasonably complete, having worked from the academic bibliography of Goodman (Nicely 1979). Bovasso quit after "a few" performances so I didn't see fit to specify that or the lover's name.

Also I was thinking about taking this article to FAC, seeing as it is the most complete treatment written on the topic. Any further suggestions? czar 03:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have specific suggestions to take it to FAC, though I'm sure there will be changes needed. The level of scrutiny there, as you know, is significantly higher, but I'm sure you can get this article through the process. It's in very good shape overall. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.