Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Night of January 16th/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Night of January 16th

[edit]
Nominator(s): RL0919 (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second FA nomination for this article about a well-known Broadway play. The first try got an image review, but no other comments. Since then the article has been expanded with a few more details and references. But given the lack of feedback, I don't know what else, if anything, may be needed. So, I'm hoping that either the second time is the charm for promotion, or if not, maybe I can at least get some comments on what to improve. Thanks in advance for your input, be it good, bad, or ugly. RL0919 (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Curly Turkey

[edit]
  • Feel free to revert any of my copyedits.
  • [[Mary Benedict Cushing|Mrs. Vincent Astor]], responded incredulously: I don't see anything on this in the MOS, but use of Mr and Mrs is certainly uncommon at Wikipedia, and the Mrs <Husband's name> form is very un-21st century. You should probably restrict this sort of thing to direct quotes.
  • Rand disowned this version due to the changes.: literally disowned? Doe shtis mean she had her name removed and refused royalties?
  • The production opened on October 22, 1934, and closed in November 1934.: that could be anywhere from just over a week to over a month. Do we know how long it ran, or how many performances there were?
  • Kay also starred under a stage name: is the stage name a secret?
  • and closed on March 18, 1973, after just 30 performances: does this imply the London run of only 22 performances was not a success? The "Reception" section says so, but that's no the impression the reader gets until then.
  • Jury gimmick: sounds like a value judgement—in regular parlance "gimmick" is used in a pejorative sense
  • turned a profit after subtracting the ticket price: do we know that ticket price?
  • Merrill dismissed this explanation as a cover-up for the play promoting Nietzschean ideas that Rand later rejected: could this be elaborated? We shouldn't assume readers are familiar with Rand (imagine this article on the Main Page)
  • Most other reviewers were more positive: if most reviews were positive, then why does it take three sentences to get to them?
  • I'd like to see slightly more background by way of a capsule history of Rand up to the writing of the play. We're given no idea how old she was or how experienced a writer she was, or if this play were part of a particular phase in her career or of some artistic movement.
  • Similarly, I'd like to see some background on Rand's views of individualism vs conformity. "Individualism" and "conformity" are not monolothic concepts—I'd like to see what they meant to her.
  • Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the rapid feedback and for your copyediting help. Some of your comments/questions have relatively quick answers, so replies on those now and more later for items that require more time:
  • Mrs. Astor: The 'Mrs.' form is how she is named in every source that mentions this incident, including ones as recent as 2009. Using another name would probably be synthesis. However, I only included the name in order to wikilink to the person the comment was attributed to. Looking at it again, I realized the link was to the wrong Mrs. Astor. The correct one has no article. Absent a link, I don't see the name as that important, so I've simply removed it.
  • Disowned: Changed to 'disavowed', which seems a better term.
  • LA production dates: Nothing that I found gives the exact closing date. I thought I had found the closing date in a news article, but then there was a piece the next week that showed the production was still going.
  • Kay's stage name: No secret, but not widely mentioned. Pretty sure I have a source that states it, but I'll have to figure out which one. I've added it.
  • Run lengths: The relation of the success of a play and the length of its run isn't straightforward. If the house is packed but the run is limited by other factors, then it is still a success. But in both of these instances, the productions are described in sources as commercially unsuccessful. I removed the word 'just' from the description of the 1973 show in the Productions section, so now the failure of both productions is covered equally in the Reception section.
  • Jury gimmick: As indicated by the quote marks, this is what it is called in sources. I don't think anything negative is intended; Rand called it this herself. And the definition of the term matches exactly what the jury device is to the play: it attracts attention, but it has little functional impact.
Back later with further responses. --RL0919 (talk) 10:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further follow-ups below (plus one updated above):
  • Ticket prices: Prices varied for different seats and performances. The source cited says "no more than $2.75". I added a detail along this line, but obviously that's vague. If you want more specific prices, newspaper ads show most prices for the Broadway run were $0.50 to $2.50. But I'm reluctant to use an advertisement as a source in the article.
  • Rand's background: Excellent suggestion; I'm adding material on that now.
More to come on your three remaining items. --RL0919 (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Last round from your initial comments:
  • Merrill's interpretation: Expanded with more detail.
  • Review order: Changed.
  • Rand's views: Expanded with more detail.
Let me know if there is anything I missed from your comments, or other improvements you would like to see. --RL0919 (talk) 01:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm no expert on either Rand or the theatre (I've never even read any of Rand's work), but the article gives the feeling of comprehensiveness. If you ever managed to track down when the LA production closed, please make sure to add it. I'm giving this article my support on the prose. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support. I rechecked the source and was able to get slightly more specific on the LA close date -- "late November" instead of just "November". Will still keep any eye out for an exact date. --RL0919 (talk) 02:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great—that's still much more helpful. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by karanacs. I had no idea that Rand had written plays, and this one sounds intriguing. For this article, I think the prose needs more work. I did some copyediting in the history section, but I would love to see another set of eyes on it. Further, these issues with history:

  • "such as whether Andre had a gun"....who is Andre? This character hasn't been introduced. Can we include at least a few words of description?
  • I think Royalty dispute paragraph needs to be moed up to the main history section. It would flow well from the idea that Woods wanted dramatic conflict to this idea that he hired collaborators
  • The title changes section mentions Rand's 1968 version of the play. This had not been discussed in the article yet
  • The other sections weren't as messy, but another set of eyes would help.
  • The TCM website lists two other names for this: Private Secretary and something else.
  • Is The Classic TV Archive considered a reliable source?
  • A reviewer for The Times praised Foster's performance as "tense and beautiful". This needs a citation immediately after this sentence so we know where the quote came from. There are two sources cited after the next sentence, which is confusing for this particular quote.

Karanacs (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback; I'm good with your edits. More eyes is definitely better! Replies to your comments from above:
  • Changed "Andre" to "the defendant" -- her name isn't important to the point, and you are correct it hasn't been mentioned in the body yet at that spot, only in the lead.
  • Incorporated royalty dispute as suggested, and re-ordered the other subsections so the published version is discussed before the title changes.
  • The two other titles for the 1941 movie are described as "working titles", not titles used for release. I'm not sure that level of detail about the movie is needed for the article about the play. (I did add it to the separate article about the movie.) It's not hard to include it if you think it is important; just trying to avoid bloat and stick to summary style.
  • Added a refnote after the "tense and beautiful" quote.
  • CTVA aggregates data from other sources, so I would take them with caution. In this case they specifically cite The Viewer and TVTimes as their own sources, which increases my confidence. I would have consulted those directly, but it's difficult to get them in the US (my local libraries don't have them, and $100+ for an individual database subscription is a bit much). If someone reading this is UK based or has access to the BUFVC databases, I am happy to take a substitute source.
Let me know if you need more. I will be traveling later today, so there may be a short delay in responses, but I will be as attentive as I can. --RL0919 (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the CTVA source, I added a source from the British Film Institute that supports the original date and lead actor for the ITV adaptation. I will need to re-check the other source already used to confirm what details it supports, and possibly find another source or emend the sentence, before removing the CTVA source. --RL0919 (talk) 08:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Karanacs:, sorry it took a while, but the Paulu book didn't provide some of the details, so I had to go hunting for alternative sources. Finally tracked down coverage in Variety, which I used to replace both CTVA and BFI. Please let me know if there's anything else that would help motivate your support. --RL0919 (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing all that work. It still needs a copyedit, I think. Karanacs (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully someone else will give it another pass. If not, the nomination will fizzle anyway, since 1 or even 2 supports won't cut it. --RL0919 (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Obviously getting closer but if after over a month at FAC we're still looking for a copyedit then I think we'd best close this nom and return after the work's done. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Night_of_January_16th/archive2&oldid=645225930"