Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kinky Boots (musical)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 11:26, 29 August 2015 [1].

Kinky Boots (musical)

edit
Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2013 Tony Award for Best Musical winner. I think it is getting close to what is expected.TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to catch the touring production of this in St. Louis earlier this year, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I'm happy to see the article brought to this forum for that reason.

Image review:

  • Images look fine from a licensing standpoint. The poster in the infobox has a FUR in place. I would personally prefer a different/better photo of Cyndi Lauper as the one chosen obscures her face too much.
  • File:KinkyBootsBroadway.JPG shouldn't be forced to 200px in size. That's smaller than our default thumbnail, and that forces the photo to appear smaller than other photos for those of us who set our preferences to use larger size photos.
  • Captions are appropriate and within expectations of a FA.

Imzadi 1979 → 08:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Taking the footnotes one at a time,

One final note that applies to all of the footnotes. It looks like we have a faithful reproduction the the formatting of each source's capitalization scheme. So some are in Title Case, some are in Sentence case, and there's even some ALL CAPS in use. The last one, as noted above is not allowed under our MOS. By reproducing each title as the sources formatted them, our article looks unpolished. Our MOS does allow minor typographic changes that do not alter meaning when reproducing quotations, a standard practice in publishing. Consulting the APA style guide, one would find explicit advice that says to change the capitalization of source titles to comply with their style guide. CMOS will tell you the same. Help:Citation Style 1, last time that I checked, says that titles should be in Title Case, and MOS:CT would agree with that regarding composition titles. The rest of the MOS is fairly quiet at expressing a preference. The key take away here though is that our work should be consistent in how we format things. We should apply a level of detail to polish things before the FA star is applied to an article.

Overall though, I don't see any issue with the reliability of the sources used, just their presentation in the article. To summarize, I'd personally prefer a better photo of Ms. Lauper, especially one that faces leftward into the text if it's going to be display on the right side of this article. The images check out, as so the sources once their formatting is polished. Imzadi 1979 → 08:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Imzadi1979, Thank you for the extensive source review. I have attempted to move this to Title case throughout.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • To answer a couple of questions above:
      • I have always been told to only link a publication name on the first usage in a footnote based on the same principles at WP:OVERLINK. You'd generally only link The New York Times the first time it was presented in the body of an article, re-linking in a new section much farther down the page if appropriate. Linking in every footnote is overkill, and as Tony1 used to say, we should be judicious in driving our readers to links that deliver the most value, which in footnotes is the external link to the cited source. Adding wikilinks to the names of newspapers does add some value by allowing readers unfamiliar with those papers the option to read the article on the paper for information about it to judge the quality of the source.
        • Basically, the thinking behind redundant links throughout the footnotes is that the purpose of delinking redundant links is that we assume that the reader reads the link on first use. However, we are not suppose to assume that the reader reads all footnotes and thus, link each as if it is the first use.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, our MOS, to the best of my knowledge, is totally silent on the subject of how to format titles within titles. So I just double checked what CMOS16 says. It handles the concept twice (§14.102 and §14.177). The first is for italicized titles that contain other titles, such as the name of a book that mentions another book. In that case, they give the rule I know, render the other title is quotation marks (§14.102). For quoted titles that contain other titles, then the rule depends on whether or not the included title would be italicized or not. If it is, such as a book title contained within a newspaper article title, then the book's title is left italics, but if it's an article title within an other article title, it's quoted using single quotes, which is also the rule I know (§14.177). (You must nest single quotes within double quotes, a rule our MOS enforces as well.) So it appears that as a long-form work rendered in italics, Kinky Boots would be quoted in a book title and italics in an article title.

        In short though, if following CMOS16's rule, you still have cases where the title within the title is quoted and should be italicized. MLA7 appears to use the same rule, but never explicitly states it.

      • Let me answer your question about domain names with some examples. Take http://www.michiganhighways.org. Let's say I were going to cite that. The masthead (large title) at the top of the home page gives "Michigan Highways" as the name of the site. (The HTML title attribute gives "Michigan Highways: The Great Routes of the Great Lakes State".) Then when citing the website, I'd use either form, preferably the former, as the italicized title, Michigan Highways. For http://www.broadway.com, the masthead gives "BROADWAY.COM". So to cite that website, that's what I'd use as its name because that's what it calls itself. Because we're not allowed to use all caps, that would be rendered as Broadway.com. http://www.sfgate.com lists "SFGATE" at the top, and uses "About SFGate" for the non-all caps form so it would be cited as SFGate. (Hearst Communications is the publisher, btw, and I wouldn't mention the San Francisco Chronicle unless using sfgate.com as a courtesy link for an online version of an article published in the Chronicle where I was also citing the page and date information for the print version.)
    • Hopefully these answers are helpful. Imzadi 1979 → 20:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article needs a wee bit more balance. The West End production is just three lines. I appreciate it has only just begun previews, however there is definitely more to say. For instance the changes that were made to remove some Americanisms from the text.Blethering Scot 20:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Unfortunately this has failed to attract any support for promotion after being open for over three weeks—it will be archived shortly. You may renominate after the standard two-week waiting period. --Laser brain (talk) 11:26, 29 August 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/Kinky_Boots_(musical)/archive1&oldid=1138465255"