Wikipedia:Peer review/Rodgers and Hammerstein/archive1

Rodgers and Hammerstein

This is a topic very close to my interests and I want it to be as good as it can possibly be. Thank you anyone who helps out with this.--kralahome 21:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a very good article. Why profile these particular musicals? What makes them more notable than others? There are a lot of red links. I'd like to see a short bibliography. Durova 17:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I too think this a great article but it's a bit off track. The main problem I see is the detail you have included about *some* of the musicals. It breaks the flow of the article. I'll elaborate, there is already an entry in Wikipedia for Rodgers, and an entry for Hammerstein. Then there is your entry for "Rodgers and Hammerstein" as that's how most people know them. This could detail their work together, what they achieved and mention the shows they wrote, probabaly chronologically and how they shaped the face of Broadway from the 40s to 60s. Each of their shows already has a separate entry and I think a lot of your show information could go into the entries for the specific shows. That's my take on the article. Keep up the good work though! --Dan F 10:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This article focuses a lot on the works of... rather than the partnership of R&H. I saw from the talk page that you are planning on re-writing it. I would like to suggest developing a consistent and concise manner of discussing the works first. Consider something like The Oz books#List of "canon" Oz books ("Famous Forty") or concise sub-sections of prose (don't list of the titles of each musical numbers). Or consider creating Works of Rodgers and Hammerstein as a Wikipedia:Featured lists. But, for this article, I would like to know more about the partnership...how did they meet, how did they work together, who got paid more, whose idea was it to write The King and I, etc. and so forth. --maclean25 07:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]