Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The King and I/archive1

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 promoted by User:GrahamColm 12:06, 3 February 2013‎ [1].

The King and I

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk), Ssilvers (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... we think it meets the criteria. The King and I is indelibly associated with Yul Brynner, but he started out firmly in the shadow of leading lady Gertrude Lawrence. Even if you're unfamiliar with the musical, the songs have become such a part of the background of Western culture, that I'm sure you've heard them. Enjoy. Thanks to Brianboulton and Tim riley for most thorough peer reviews.Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and note that the article has recently had a very helpful Peer Review. Rodgers and Hammerstein wrote 11 major musicals together between 1943 and 1959; this 1951 work was in the middle of the series. These shows presented well-written stories that explored serious social themes in a way that was revolutionary for musical theatre, clothing them in memorable and evocative musical scores and integrating dancing seamlessly with plot, songs and lavish productions. They established Broadway as the dominant creative force in musical theatre worldwide for decades to come, introducing what is referred to as the "Golden Age" of American musicals. Although The King and I did not, perhaps, push the social envelope as far as some of the team's earlier works, it does involve two stories of forbidden love, a clash of customs between East and West, and portrayals of two Victorian-age women (Anna and Tuptim) who are each alone in a foreign land and must challenge the status quo, which is supported, on the other hand, by a third interesting female character (Lady Thiang). Its depiction of these female characters and the issue of women's independence was, if not novel, at least interesting for a 1951 musical. The King and I has remained popular even after Brynner's 1985 death, despite its dated treatment of an Asian culture, and I thank Wehwalt for his hard work to showcase it so well here on Wikipedia. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Support – I contributed to the peer review, where my few, and not very troubling, concerns were fully addressed (except perhaps for Decca-v-London as that company's official US label – but that's angels on pinheads territory). This article is, in my view, as good as Wikipedia gets. It is comprehensive, balanced, fully referenced, and the prose is a pleasure to read. Loud applause to the co-noms! (They will be appalled to read that I don't much care for Rodgers and Hammerstein, but I prodigiously enjoyed and admired this article nevertheless.) – Tim riley (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words and the review, and we forgive you.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – A fantastic piece of work. I have seen the show many times, most recently at the New Victoria Theatre in April last year. Finally, an excellent WP article to compliment such an excellent show! -- CassiantoTalk 21:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're glad you like it. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Leaning to support – I'm quite prepared to support the promotion of this excellent article. A few thoughts:

  • "The relationship between the King and Anna is marked by conflict through much of the piece, as well as by a love that neither is able to admit." – "neither can admit" perhaps?
Agree, very much.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The musical premiered on March 29, 1951 at Broadway's St. James Theatre." – a comma after "1951" seems stylistically sound.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as using "though" goes, I heard it is interchangeable with "although", though I've found the latter recommended in formal writing. Either way is alright with me.
There's formality, and then there's formality. I think for the purposes of a general-level encyclopedia article, we're fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1963, New York Times reviewer Lewis Funke said of the musical" – The New York Times reviewer...
This occurs elswhere also. You're right that the name of the paper is "The New York Times", but it seems awkward (at least in American English) to say "The New York Times" reviewer. What do you think, Wehwalt? -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it is awkward. I think the shortened form of the newspaper's name is acceptable once you have italicized properly at first mention. The reader knows you got it right, and you can use shortened forms if it makes the text flow better.
  • Missing closing quotation mark here: "However, Liz Smith enthused: 'The King and I is perfect'; and the Houston Chronicle wrote, of the subsequent tour, 'The King and I is the essence of musical theater, an occasion when drama, music, dance and decor combine to take the audience on an unforgettable journey."
Thanks. Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When the production reached London in 2000, however, it received uniformly positive reviews, with The Financial Times calling it" – with+noun+ing wording should probably be restructured.
Redrawn. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it. I'd say Meryle Secrest's quotation is the best possible conclusion to a compelling article! —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments! -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks from me as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added my support as my comments have been addressed. This was a great read. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 10:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I added a few missing commas after triple dates, but the article is close to error-free. Mikado should not be linked to from within the quote from Barber in the "Critical reception" section, and "2004 – " might be more enduring than "2004 to present". Very nice job. Finetooth (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I don't view the "don't link within quotes" as a rigid rule, the idea is to avoid guessing what is being talked about. There's no ambiguity about The Mikado.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the copy edits and comments. I love all the punctuation fixes, but I'd rather not change "present" to a dash. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Leaning to support— It's an impressive piece of research and writing, definitely of an FA-quality. Here are a few suggestions:

Bluntly, whenever I add alt text, people find it unsatisfactory so I prefer not to do it. Perhaps Ssilvers will take a crack at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alt texts have always been a pain for me as well. Hopefully Ssilvers will fix them. Cinosaur (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I took a shot at it. Feel free to rewrite or point out if I missed any. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • the lead's second sentence has two consecutive clauses "which" and "who": "...by Margaret Landon, which derives from the memoirs of Anna Leonowens, who became governess to the children of King Mongkut of Siam in the early 1860s...". Can we reword it for a better flow, like: "...by Margaret Landon, which derives from the memoirs of Anna Leonowens, a governess to the children of King Mongkut of Siam in the early 1860s..."?
Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • do we need the awkward second "who"in this sentence in the lead: "...contacted Rodgers and Hammerstein, who were initially reluctant, but who agreed to write the musical..." Can it be replaced with "then"?
Wehwalt dropped the 2nd who - looks good to me for purposes of Lead. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • consider wikilinking the first occurrence of "King of Siam" in Historical background to Monarchy of Thailand;
Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • in Historical background: "at a time when the streets of Bangkok were canals..." — due to floods? Is this obvious or could use a bit more clarity?
Well, it's like Venice or Amsterdam, I guess. Wehwalt changed it to say boat transport. Let us know if you think it still needs more clarity. I'm not sure what we'll gain by delving deeper into the geographical history, but maybe something in the Bangkok article would be helpful.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reader will understand what is meant, and that Anna could not ride through the streets of Bangkok, because they were in such a condition. Seriously, for purposes of a section which is for background purposes, I think the reader is adequately clued in on 19th century Bangkok.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • consider restructuring Historical background for a better temporal flow. The last paragraph starting with ""King Mongkut was about 57 years old in 1861..." just begs to be made the first, setting the context and rationale for his subsequent request for a British governess.
Just want to say that I particularly like this suggestion. It fits my philosophy of writing, which is to start with a simple declarative sentence from which all else builds.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt made it so. Looks good to me. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • in Creation, "...consists of episodes, showing vignettes of life at the Siamese court, along with descriptions of historical events..." — was it that some episodes in the book showed vignettes of life, or that the book as a whole illustrated vignettes by means of episodes? If the former, we don't seem to need the first comma here. If the latter, we do need the first comma, but not the second — unless, of course, the Comma Sutra is entirely lost on me...))
Whoa! Watch where you're waving that punctuation. But the changes look good to me -- Wehwalt, please check that you like the final product. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • in Act 2: "The prince orders the end of the custom of kowtowing, which Anna had hated." Why the past perfect tense in the consistently present tense narrative? Should be either "which Anna hated" or "which Anna has hated";
I think just "hated" works best, unless Wehwalt feels strongly. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is a difficult passage. I would say let it go as it is now. It would slow things down to mention it when Anna does, in Act I.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • words "theatre" and "theater" are used interchangeably in the article's text. Consider sticking to a single spelling;
Wehwalt changed it to use "theatre" everywhere except in direct quotes. But my usual convention is to use the word "theater" to refer to a building in which a theatre work is seen. I'm happy enough with this, however. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only one "theater" existed outside a quotation or a name, so I took that as the easier course.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • in 1991 to 2002: "Renshaw pointedly ignored the printed stage directions in the script[106] in reshaping the piece into what he called..." — sorry to nitpick, but the sentence may use slight restructuring to rid it of the three recurring "in"s;
Changed the second one to "when". -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • in 1991 to 2002: maybe, wikilinking "emerald Buddha" will explain its significance for the revival and Siamese setting;
Wehwalt made it so. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • in 1991 to 2002: wikilink the first (and only) occurence of Playbill;
Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • in 2004 to present: delink Variety, as it's already wikilinked once before;
Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • in Adaptations: " It featured "Shall We Dance" and "The Small House of Uncle Thomas" ballet, featuring Kikuchi as Eliza" — repetitive "feature";
Good idea. Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • in Recordings: wikilink "LP technology" to LP record;
Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • in Critical reception: "John Barber called the work "this treacle-bin [[Mikado]]", and declared that only one of the cast" — per WP:LINKSTYLE, "items within quotations should not generally be linked".
See Wehwalt's comment above. I can see it either way, but I think Wehwalt is right that the link is helpful to readers here - some people will know the reference, but to others, it might make the quote very obscure without a link. More discussion welcome. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hope these comments are helpful. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 08:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, they are. We'll work through these and post any comments in response.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All done except: On alt text, see above. On quoted Mikado see my comment to Finetooth above. Very helpful and insightful, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was a pleasure reading the article, even with an eye for imperfections. Changed to "Support". Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the comments and support. I responded to each point above before realizing that I was late for this train. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are in need of an image review at this point, if anyone looking at this page who isn't Ssilvers or myself would be so kind.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Mongkut caption needs neither colon nor period
  • File:King~I~OBP.jpeg should explicitly identify the copyright holder and original publication date, and the rationale seems to be missing a couple of the items from Wikipedia:FUR#Necessary_components
  • File:King_Mongkut_and_Prince_Chulalongkorn.jpg needs US PD tag and source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I've done the first two and found and uploaded another image in place of the third one, of a stereoscopic image. I cropped it but for some reason it didn't upload that way. I'll play with it later. I think it's better than the image we had.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble with that as iPhoto is being difficult. But I have asked Connormah to do a better job on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like both images, as they show Chulalongkorn as a small boy, perhaps before Anna arrived in Siam, and as a teenager. The difference in dress of the king and heir, with Western shoes, sword and military medals, suggests a westernizing of court dress during this period. I added the PD-US tag. The dead source should not be a problem, as this 150-year-old image in formal, military dress, is a posed photo-op for publication, not a private photo. The image is used here. here is a similar image. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like the stereoscopic image (once cropped) as it shows a much more natural view of monarch and (part of) family and allows the reader to compare what they are wearing with that in a production. I suspect that many people consult these articles to get a quick learn in preparation for seeing a show.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, or other image folks, can you justify including File:Yul Brynner Samantha Eggar Anna and the King 1972.JPG <---- this image near the Adaptations section, where we discuss the TV series? Note the licensing information given andthe "back" of the image link. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

  • Nitpicks
  • Ref 17 and several others have a comma after the ext. link marker, which is OK, but I note that other refs have a full stop in this place. This ought to be standardised throughout.
All commas now, except in book refs. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 37: Internet Broadway Database should not be italicised
Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 58: Ditto
Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 60: "Playbill" not italicised. See 37, 78 et al
Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 71: Quote marks open
Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 79: publisher should not be italicised
Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 81: Title not in quotes. There are others, e.g. 103, 110, 111, 123, 124
Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 86: Overitalics - date and retrieval date
Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 87 looks to have a different format from the rest
Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 89: I'm sure this shoild be Companion not companion
Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 99: Incomplate format. The souvenir program would have had a publisher
The producers of the tour were the publishers. Wehwalt, did the R&H Org produce this tour? -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look into it as I review the programs on Thursday. I don't presently have anything one way or the other. I think "publisher" is a bit of a stretch for a printed program, but I'll see what I can do. It looks like there are Playbills extant from the Broadway portions of the tour.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. According to Capua, it was Mitch Leigh, I've inserted that and modified the text to indicate he both produced and directed. Directing Yul Brynner must have been ... interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Wehwalt! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 113: lacks retrieval date
Added. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 114: Ditto
Added, although the text does not show up unless you mouse over it. Wehwalt is there a fix for that? -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 152: Quote marks open
Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There do not appear to be citations from Block, Bloom & Vlastnik or the Rodgers autobiography.
Block is used in footnote 10. Bloom tidbits now added. Wehwalt,should we remove Rodgers, put it under "Further reading" or add something from it? -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll further reading it as soon as I'm sure I won't edit conflict you.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General comments to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on these today and tomorrow and would be grateful for Ssilver's assistance with the ones which require broad checks.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for comments so far, Brian! Wehwalt, I took care of most of them, but I left you one or two questions above, and of course check my changes to see if you have agree and/or have better changes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: No further comments on the general content which I reviewed in depth during the PR process and has been improved by further tweaking here. The outstanding source/citation issues, above, are trivial. A first-class article by an established premier league team. Brianboulton (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, both for the review and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your helpful comments both at PR and here! -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a problem. Since we have the free image, it's hard to justify a fair use one. I hope to be going to a performing arts library later in the week, perhaps I will happen upon something PD. this page seems very promising if I can spend some time going through the physical programs and seeing if they lack copyright notices. I'm confident the ones from the original run won't have a copyright notice as a Playbill I have for Me and Juliet, which was later, lacks one and I used the cover in that article.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have some now, and more are available if need be.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support (provisional): I've made a few minor edits myself; here are some further suggestions. This is an excellent and well-written article.

  • A general note on citations: normally the short form is in the format (to take an example) "Morley 1981, p. 191." (including the year, and a period at the end). See Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Short_citations.
You don't need a date unless there is more than one Morley book. You'll see that the guideline permits "author-page referencing". -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but a period at the end is still called for, I believe. And looking further, some of the standard citations (not the short ones) end with periods and others don't. They all should. Omnedon (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a consistency issue -- either they all should, or none should. None of our refs end with a period, except if it is a complete sentence. You'll see that the ones that end with {subscription required} have a period before the {subscription required}, but I was thinking that we could remove those periods. What do you think, Wehwalt? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the third paragraph of "Historical background", should a colon (:) precede "$100 per month", instead of a dash?
Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Creation", fourth paragraph, perhaps replace the comma before "Chee-Chee" with the word "entitled"? Otherwise it's a nested set of qualifications that seems slightly awkward.
Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the last paragraph of "Creation", a question: does the term "lyric" refer to the entire set of words for a song? A quick dictionary check suggests this should be "lyrics", but I may be mistaken.
Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in the last paragraph, ", before suddenly stopping" probably does not need the comma.
On consideration, I've deleted the whole clause – I know what we were trying to say, but I don't think it matters, and I'm using the KISS principle. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More to come as I have time. Omnedon (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments! -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat
First off, what a fantastic article. Learning heavily to support, but three very minor suggestions for you to consider. If you don't like them or don't agree with them, then fair enough, but at least have a think about them:

  • It's a bit nit-picky, but I notice that in three places you have put the image to the left straight under a title. Although I don't mind it (and use the same placement myself from time to time), it does go against WP:IMAGELOCATION. I'm not saying to change the location, but at least be sure you're happy with the location and justified in having the images where they are.
I understood that this rule had been abandoned, but I see that it still seems to recommend not putting left images directly under a heading. Can Wehwalt, Sandy, BrianBoulton or others knowledgable about this comment? -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I treat it as a guideline. The idea is to prevent confusion about where the text of the section starts, as I understand it. However, it is often the best solution, so like SchroCat, it's something to be considered, but more to make sure you are doing it properly than as a proscriptive rule.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the programming has changed, my recollection was that the rule was "no left placement in level three headers (===heading===)or below". It's OK under a main section heading (==heading==) but it screws things up on certain types of readers if you do it for the lesser ones. Not sure if that rule still applies or not. Montanabw(talk) 21:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 110 – The "Internet Broadway database" should be the "Internet Broadway Database". You also need to be consistent with linking it or not, or at least only the first occurrence (refs 37 and 38 are linked, the others are not)
I agree, but I think you're looking at an old version. I think it's fixed now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My fault - written on one day and posted the next without me checking what had happened in the interim! - SchroCat (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 144 – Caps not needed
Fixed, thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from that, I have no issues at all. - SchroCat (talk) 06:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments! -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - All good. Congrats on what is a very, very good article indeed. - SchroCat (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overuse of however: see here and here for discussions of the overuse of however. There are 11 uses in this version; please review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have cut it down to three. Looks ok now? -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2013 (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/The_King_and_I/archive1&oldid=1141922428"