Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Night of January 16th/archive3

< 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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 05:17, 20 November 2016 [1].

Night of January 16th edit

Nominator(s): RL0919 (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the debut play of author Ayn Rand. It was her first big professional success, and the only one of her plays to be a hit. It was also the last hit for Al Woods, one the most successful Broadway producers of the early 20th century.

Since the previous nomination there is some additional material and sources, as well as a couple of additional images. The article also went to the Guild of Copy Editors for a thorough copy edit. Finally, I approached User:Curly Turkey about mentoring under the new FAC mentoring scheme. He provided additional copy editing and some feedback. So now it's here for round three. RL0919 (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I support on prose, as I did last round. The nom died last time from reviewer apathy rather than unresolved issues. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Not sure different premiere-dates and theatres for each title in the infobox is necessary. It seems just the title changed; it wasn't substantially a different play. Otoh I think Woman on Trial and Penthouse Legend need to be in the infobox.
  • Jury element: the long list of celebrity of juror names is unnecessary and tedious to read. All you need is a couple of the most prominent names. If you don't want to lose the info, you can relegate it to a footnote.
  • Themes: surprised to see no mention of Objectivism. What place does the philosophy of Night have in her overall thought?—indopug (talk) 04:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Replies:
  • I reduced the info to just the first premier, as Woman on Trial, so you can see what that might look like. {{Infobox play}} does not have a parameter for alternative titles, and the 'name' parameter creates the infobox header, so I don't know of any other way the other titles would be mentioned there.
  • I get your point on the juror list; will look at different ways of doing it and probably update tomorrow. See update below.
  • The play is from early in Rand's career and is by her own description not philosophical. Basically it pre-dates Objectivism or any systematic philosophizing by her. To the extent that it was influenced by philosophy, the common view in sources is that it was the philosophy of Nietzsche, which Rand was interested in at the time but which she later rejected. --RL0919 (talk) 05:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can find a source that says that, it would be good to say so for those who may be wondering. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I moved most of the juror details to a note. I did a draft of leaving it in the body with fewer names, but it seemed somewhat arbitrary as to who I might include. Regarding philosophy, most of what I said above is in the article, except the chronological point that this was written before she formulated Objectivism. I'll see if there is a source that says that or some equivalent. I did remove the addition of "philosopher" as a description for her, because that is anachronistic. --RL0919 (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Turned out to be easier to source than I expected, thanks to a book published earlier this year. --RL0919 (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Indopug:, it's been a while since your last comment, and I wanted to make sure you knew that I had responded to all of your previous input. Thanks for helping, and let me know if you have any other suggestions for the article. --RL0919 (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy with the changes so far. My major remaining concern is with the structure of the article. History seems far too broad and unwieldy (stretching from 1933 to 1973 with many sudden narrative leaps in between), and Productions too dry (as a list of theatres, dates and actors) and somewhat repetitive of History (don't see why the month-long EE Clive production needs to be in two sections; ditto for the Ambassador run). I think having the entire History+Productions info recast completely chronologically and then split into new sections (Background, Writing, Creative conflicts, Productions, Aftermath maybe?) would solve these problems, but I'm not sure.—indopug (talk) 09:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was a little skeptical, but actually that turned out to be a relatively easy change, and generally an improvement. Give it a look and see what you think. Section titles and image placement may need some tweaking, as might wording of specific sentences that are in new places within the narrative. --RL0919 (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Indopug: Just making sure you saw the changes made following your last suggestion. I did do some further tweaking after my previous comment. Not sure if you are following this FAC page and/or the article. --RL0919 (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a day or two.—indopug (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RL0919:

First time reviewing a play but I'll try to address some issues I find:
  • Avoid short paragraphs like "Despite the disputes between Rand and Woods, the play opened at Shubert's Ambassador Theatre on September 16, 1935, where it ran successfully for seven months. It closed on April 4, 1936, after 283 performances.[23]" If you can't expand them, merge it other paragraphs with others. Same is with "In 1989, Bollywood director Anant Balani's debut film Gawaahi, a Hindi-language adaptation of Night of January 16th starring Indian actress Zeenat Aman, was released.[99][100]"
  • In the "Cast of the Broadway production of Night of January 16th (in speaking order)" there are some blank parts in Other notable performers. However, are they necessary for this article?
Other than that I don't find other noticeable issues with this article (probably because I'm not new to them). However, I would recommend archiving some really old references in case they become deadlinks. Also, if you have time could you check my FAN, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Allen Walker/archive1? Also, I would suggest you to review more FAN in order to get more feedback to this nomination. Good luck with this article.Tintor2 (talk) 01:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tintor2:, thanks for the feedback. Added archive links for online-only sources per your suggestion. There are only a few of those. Many of the links are online archives of print sources, and as such are verifiable even if the linked sites cease to exist. I also merged one paragraph and expanded another. The paragraph about Gawaahi is still somewhat short, but the content doesn't really belong as part of another paragraph. Regarding the cast lists, the intention is that non-Broadway cast are listed only if the actor is notable, so there will typically be some unfilled slots. Hope that addresses all your concerns about the article. --RL0919 (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@RL0919: Good work. I'll give you my support. I also suggest calling the GA reviewer through the ping's work to get to more feedback.Tintor2 (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I have a couple of minor comments which don't affect my support.

  • "Rand wanted her play to have no fixed ending, which would depend on the result of the trial": perhaps "Rand wanted her play's ending to depend on the result of the trial, rather than having a fixed final scene".
  • Why does the comment on the table say only to include blue-linked actors? Shouldn't it include any actor notable enough for an article, even if there's no article yet?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support! Specific replies:
  • I'm fine with that wording; updated accordingly.
  • I'm pretty sure I mimicked the note about the table from another article. For this article at least, I think the most important part is not blue-linked vs. notable, it's only listing performers from the productions discussed in the article. Otherwise it can attract cruft about Famous Person who appeared in some high school production. So I tweaked the wording of the note. --RL0919 (talk) 01:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

  • Looks like we need the usual image licensing check, and source review for formatting/reliability.
  • Also as this is your first FAC, RL0919, I'd also like a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing, a hoop we ask all first-timers to jump through.

All these checks can be conducted by people who've commented above or you can post requests at the top of WT:FAC. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested, thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 01:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Other side of the flyer is one of images below, so confirmed that there is no notice on either side. I added a mention of this to the Commons description pages for both sides.
  • File:Ayn Rand.jpg: Photo of author in the section on background and production seems relevant. License tag seems legit. Caption supported by article.
  • File:E.E. Clive in The Little Princess.jpg: Photo of the stage-r in the section on that seems pertinent. Caption supported by article text. PD claim credible, dunno how to check.
  • The public domain status of the movie is cited to a reliable source at The Little Princess (1939 film). To confirm that the image is from that movie, I suppose you would have to watch it. Clive appears around 38 minutes in; I added that detail to the description on Commons.
  • File:Albert H. Woods 001.jpg: Photo of the producer in the section on the subsequent productions seems OK. Caption supported by article text. A link for verification would be nice, but the info provided is a legit claim of PD-US-1923.
  • Added more source detail on Commons, including a Google Books link.
  • File:Doris Nolan in Top of the Town still.JPG: Photo of an actor in the section of the synopsis seems germane, but is better supported in the subsequent section where the caption is supported. I cannot find the image at the source.
  • There is usually this problem when uploaders get images from eBay and link a search page as the source, because the search results change. There are alternative links provided on the Commons description page that show the front and back of an uncropped print.
  • File:AvalonTheater.JPG: Image is vaguely germane to the section, but the caption is not supported in that section at least. Image is freely licensed, EXIF matches that of other uploads and the file does not seem to come from elsewhere.
  • The text in the section does say it opened at the Hollywood Playhouse as Woman on Trial, although the year is not mentioned in that section. The year is supported in the History section above (and could be omitted from the caption if that seems too remote). Update: On reflection, the year is irrelevant detail for that caption, so I went ahead and removed it.
  • File:Edmund Breese.jpeg: Photo of castmember in the section on that seems relevant, caption is supported there. Source link is vague.
  • Added specific link on Commons.
  • Added link on Commons.
  • File:Night of January 16th jury flyer back.jpg: Photo of an advertisement of the jury system in the section on that system is pertinent, is the caption supported somewhere? Assuming that the back of the advert doesn't have a copyright notice, the copyright tag is legit.
  • Other side of the flyer is the image in the infobox, as discussed for the first bullet above. The image shown demonstrates what the caption says; caption could be altered if that isn't sufficient.
  • File:Walter Pidgeon-publicity.JPG: Photo of a cast member in the reception section seems vaguely relevant. Caption supported in different parts of the text. Source link is vague.
  • He was called out for praise by reviewers, so he seemed more relevant in that section than any other image. Unfortunately I can't do much about the link the original uploader provided, but a distributed print of the same photo can be seen here, with front and back shown to demonstrate absence of copyright notice. I've added that link to the description page on Commons.
  • My take is that fair use to illustrate matters that are covered in a particular section of an article is not uncommon. (And, for what it's worth, there was no objection in two previous FAC image reviews.) But one image out of 11 isn't make or break, so I'm open to removing if it is perceived as a problem.

No comments on the ALT text, the infobox may benefit from it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing. Replies about specific items provided above. --RL0919 (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to let other people comment on the NFCC#8 issue. As for File:Edmund Breese.jpeg I presume it doesn't have a copyright notice? The source indicates the file might have been published after 1923 - creation date and publication date are frequently not the same thing much to my annoyance. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Edmund Breese photo: The source print does not have a copyright notice -- both sides can be seen at the NYPL website. The back is stamped with the date 1938 (probably when it was taken into an archive), so the print at least existed then. But it is probably much older, because it is the product of Elmer Chickering, who died in 1915. As to the movie poster, others please weigh in. --RL0919 (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since no one else has provided input, I've gone the "better safe than sorry" route and removed the movie poster image. @Jo-Jo Eumerus:, let me know if you have any other image concerns or if we can consider the review passed. --RL0919 (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks edit

My ability to do spot checks was rather limited as many of the sources such as Branden aren't accessible to me. However, I checked one or two of the reviews, and I found an online copy of Burns, and a couple of the available newspaper pieces. I only found one issue: some of the material cited to Ruth Gordon's 1969 article doesn't appear to be in that article. I may have missed it, but it looks like Gordon doesn't mention the bankruptcy, and the money he lost in 1929 was apparently not lost in the crash, but seems to have been taken by his wife. The article doesn't say he lost his fortune because of the crash, but that's such an obvious implication I think the reader needs to be warned it's not the case. Of course Gordon is telling a nostalgic story forty years later, so it might be better to elide it all into "his fortunes fell in the 1930s" or something similar. Finally, I don't see the "six more plays" in the Gordon piece; is that in Kaufman, which is also cited for that sentence? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kauffman covers his final bankruptcy: "Woods died bankrupt." Doesn't get more direct than that. But the specific number of plays after Night isn't mentioned there. I'll see if I can trace the source for that detail. I take your point about his earlier financial decline. Gordon is oblique about exactly what happened; Kauffman doesn't describe those details either. This makes it hard to be both specific and brief, so your suggestion of keeping it vague is probably the best.
FWIW, I have most (not quite all) of the sources in my possession, so if there is something you would like to check, I can provide quotes. Or even scans of print pages, where that's the format. --RL0919 (talk) 02:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, no need to send scans -- the checks I did make me confident enough. If you can just adjust the points discussed above I think that's fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the wording on both points. Thanks for taking up the task, and let me know if you have any other feedback. --RL0919 (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2016 (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/archive3&oldid=750630372"