Wikipedia:Peer review/Wicked (musical)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wicked (musical)[edit]

I'm not sure what the record for shortest time from GA-failed to GA-passed is, or even if there is one, but four days has to be pretty good. We're now looking for those little things we've missed that will annoy the FA reviewers. A comment has already been made on the talk page suggesting a "difference between book and musical" paragraph/section, which is a good idea. Any other suggestions? Happy‑melon 18:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 19:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A "Differences" section may invite original research, though. -Malkinann (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia[edit]

The answer to your question is minutes; please don't assume GA makes an FA, because GAs are passed by one editor and GA status has little relevance to FA preparedness. Some things to work on—samples only, no need to get back to me as corrections are done:

  • WP:OVERLINKing. Don't most English speakers know words and places like witch, word-of-mouth, Canada, Connecticut, New York, and United States, and I saw Joel Grey linked many times. The article is awash in blue, and those irrelevant overlinks dilute the high-value links. Only links which provide specific context to this article are needed, and terms need be linked only on the first occurrence. Ditto for Glinda, Elphaba, Medina—they are repeatedly linked. And why the links in the infobox to Chicago, Tokyo, etc? Don't most people know what those major cities are, and is clicking on those links going to tell me something about Stephen Schwartz? I removed linking of solo years, see WP:MOSDATE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • POV has crept in with WP:PEACOCKery. Yes, we all know it's one of the greatest musicals ever; let the numbers and review say that without adding inflated, peacock terms. Sample in the lead, "Although the production received mixed reviews and was panned by the New York Times, it was extremely popular" ... extremely isn't needed. Check the text for such things. Here's another one that's not necessary: Wicked's popularity dramatically spread quickly by word-of-mouth ...
  • By the way, it's popularity spread by word of mouth? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have a look at WP:LEAD for how a lead should be constructed before you approach FAC. Why is a transitional event like the Stagehand Strike mentioned in the lead?
  • WP:MOSNUM (read it all before approaching FAC, it is exactly the kind of page that is overlooked at GA): avoid starting sentences with numbers. 800,000 people have seen the West End production and over 2 million the North American tour.[4]
  • WP:MOSNUM: The show was nominated for ten of the 2004 Tony Awards, ...
  • Format your ref dates consistently so user preferences will work—see how ugly this looks?
    • ^ "Something Wicked This Way Comes". Ugly Betty. November 1, 2007. No. 6, season 2.
    • ^ "A “Wicked” Ugly Betty Episode", BroadwayWorld TV, 2007-11-01. Retrieved on November 5, 2007.
  • You need to put brackets around the 2007-11-01 so it will format.
  • All sources should have a publisher identified, notice:
  • Wicked - die Hexen von Oz. Retrieved on November 9, 2007.
    • Who published that? It also needs a language icon.
  • And this one, for example: Wicked on Broadway. Retrieved on November 8, 2007.
  • I didn't check them all, but make sure that everything sourced to (^ a b c d e f g h i Wicked - Musical Themes. MusicalSchwartz.com.) Stephen Scwartz is a statement *from* Stephen Schwartz; he is not an unbiased source, and he should only be used to source what *he* says.
  • The "Casts" section has refs hanging mid-air; they should be attached to sentences or something. Also, Wiki is an encyclopedia, not a Playbill. I'm not sure current cast is appropriate (see WP:NOT). There's also a hanging ref at the end of principle roles; better to add an introductory sentence and attach it to that, or incorporate it into the table as a footnote. The cast lists should be shuffled off to a daughter article, and this section should focus much more on the critical reception of Grey, Idina, et al.
  • I don't see a Production section at all; the article cannot be comprehensive (1b) without that.
    • What does this mean, exactly? Happy‑melon 14:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is essentially (unfortunately) no working Theatre WikiProject, but see the Film Guidelines for some helpful tips: Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines They should help you better write the Cast and Production and Critical reception sections.
  • Please see the exercises for reducing redundancy on Tony1 (talk · contribs)'s user page. Example: The Broadway production opened October 30, 2003 to very mixed and largely conservative reviews from theatre critics ...

That's all I have time for now: I'll come back to add more if I have some free time. The missing sections (for example, Production) really must be added before you approach FAC. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undefined acronym redirect; check throughout. " ... and was certified platinum by the RIAA ... " 04:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Wicked_(musical)/archive1&oldid=1078792293"