Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wicked (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 not promoted 04:36, 22 January 2008.

Wicked (musical) edit

Check external links
  • Nominator: This article, currently a Musical Theatre A-class article, seems to exemplify, I feel, what is needed from an article about a stage musical. It meets all MoS and other WP guidelines... - Dafyd (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Co-nominator: I feel this article, which I have helped build from Start-class, now has the potential to make a featured article. Reviewers should be aware of the tremendous effort that editors (including myself but particularly Dafyd) have put into getting the synopsis as short as it currently is - Wicked has an enormously complicated plot which utterly defys efforts to shrink the synopsis section any further. Happy‑melon 21:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Couldn't you get a bigger picture? here's one. Also, do those musical numbers have to all be in bold? indopug (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-free image criteria states images should be of a small resolution.-Wafulz (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the current image stretches in the infobox and appears pixelated. indopug (talk) 08:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I see you've rectified the problem. Cool indopug (talk) 08:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Musical numbers have been debolded. —  MusicMaker5376 22:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please remove "Planned Toronto Production" per WP:CRYSTAL. --Dweller (talk) 12:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done - I don't know where that one came from. Happy‑melon 14:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I posted some autopeer review suggestions on the talk page. The article is actually in pretty good shape so the extent of peer review suggestions is not that long. I would have taken care of them myself, but it seems my efforts to be associated with the article are not entirely welcome.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of the comments were either single-issue or false positives, and all have been responded to. It was nonetheless useful. Happy‑melon 13:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You seem to have missed a few. I only have a moment, but will point out some of them here:
        • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
        • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 5cm, use 5 cm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 5&nbsp;cm.[?]
          • E.g., 1&nbsp;hour would be correct.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I see. I'll make sure this is done. Thanks! Happy‑melon 23:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • You are missing the point. 800,000 people and 30 cities are equally problematic. The point of this auto peer review bullet point is that you have cases where numerals are followed by units without the non-breaking space. The importance is that there are a variety of screen resolutions and default image size preferences that cause lines to break differently on all readers' pages. Without a non-breaking space it is possible that the numeral will appear at the end of a line and the units will appear on the next line. This is annoying for a sophisticated reader to see who knows it should not. You need to reread the entire article looking for numerals followed by units and fix all instances. This includes infoboxes because someone with a 800x600 screen resolution may have a scrunched box that causes 22 bars to break.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • That's ridiculous. I'll still make sure it is done, however. Happy‑melon 21:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I ran a check for "# ", replacing all instances that were not dates or within ref tags. Please let me know if I'm still misinterpreting this. Happy‑melon 21:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I should comment that I have finally had a chance to look at most of the rest of the peer review. I have not done a check on the weasel words issue, but everything else seems to have been addressed. If I get a chance later I will look at the weasel words issue more closely.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article needs a short section describing the various recordings of the musical. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does it? Wicked (album) is linked from the article and contains much of what might be contained in a recordings section. The track listing is elsewhere in the article; the Grammy win is mentioned under Awards; the Stuttgart recording is referred to in the Other productions section. I may be wrong, but I think that adding a recordings section would only duplicate content that is already present elsewhere... - Dafyd (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, yes, I think you're right - I'm working on it now. - Dafyd (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done - Dafyd (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. No London recording?
Nope. There was talk of it, but it's never materialised. - Dafyd (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It says "Nominated for 4 Olivier awards." Didn't it win any? If not, I don't think the nominations are really worth noting in the intro. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done - It didn't win any. I've removed the reference from the intro, as they're also mentioned further down. - Dafyd (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Why is the TOC embedded to the left? That makes the text between the infobox and the TOC look funny. Why not leave the TOC where it would normally default? I think that FAC articles generally leave the TOC alone? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done - Happy-Melon explained why the TOC was floating, but I'm not sure it makes much of a difference...- Dafyd (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate all of your prompt and hard work on this article. It is definitely improving. I have made some comments on the talk page. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment re: Intro paragraph to the "Synopsis" section. This is the first article that I have seen that has an intro/overview paragraph at that top of the "Synopsis" or "Plot" section, which is striking, since I have edited hundreds of articles about musicals. I believe that any such information should go in the WP:LEAD or in a textual analysis section, and that the Synopsis itself does not need an introduction - it should launch right into the summary. User:MusicMaker5376 disagrees with me and thinks that it is helpful. It would be very useful for independent FA editors to comment on this issue at the article talk page, as it may set an important precedent for the WP:MUSICALS project. Thanks! Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just wanted to clarify that I think it's useful in that it gives slightly more detail than the lead, but not as much as the synopsis. Some comments I've seen in the past indicate that readers may not want to read a complete overview. I think a brief encapsulation at the beginning of the synopsis is helpful in that regard. —  MusicMaker5376 01:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think the development section is a little slight for an FA article: Is there more information about the writing of the book and/or music?
    • Also, more information is needed about the Broadway production team, especially as many of them were nominated or won awards. Was the production team new for Broadway, or had they been involved in the pre-B'way production?
    • Also, is there any other information about what "retooling" was done for the B'way production after the pre-B'way production?
    • Also, what are the major differences between the novel and the show? The article says that there were major differences, but it does not describe them in any detail.
    • Also, need to add some brief cast info about various productions. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI was finally forced to think clearly enough about musicals as part of the WP:CFD debate for Category:Musicals by nationality. In this debate my argument is that Category:Chicago musicals could and should be considered separately from other such categories because productions are commonly cast for Chicago runs. Why is this significant for WP? The answer is quite simply that each production run is a notable and sectionable element of an encyclopedic entry for a successful and notable musical. Let’s take Wicked. Chicago facts are strewn haphazardly about the article. It might seem logical to lay out an article with a section entitled production runs. By the time a musical article reaches B-class it should at least have a paragraph dedicated to various production runs. A featured article should have a paragraph or section dedicated to each major run. Such a paragraph or section could be laid out as follows:

Musical X had a production that was cast for an indefinite run in [[City, State]] X1 at Notable theatre X. Casting was done by Famous casting agent X at Famous theatre X from Month DD to Month DD, YYYY. Notable Actor X1 was cast for notable role Y1, notable actor X2 was cast for notable role Y2, . . . Notable actor X# was cast for notable role Y#. In addition actor z1, actor z2. . .actor z# were cast for notable role zz1, notable role zz2, … notable role zz#. The production was originally scheduled to run from Month DD indefinitely. The City X opening was a gala affair attended by notable person x, notable person y… (Jersey Boys would include Frankie Valli and Bob Gaudio here; Color purple would include Oprah Winfrey and Jesse Jackson here, not sure about Wicked). Eventually a closing date was scheduled for the City X production of Month DD, YYYY. This closing date was extended until Month DD, YYYY. The production was sponsored by Sponsor X among others. This production run was notable because it . . .fill in the blank. (example it set records for a Chicago showing of a broadway musical – think Wicked, or it set records for a showing with an All-black cast – think Color Purple). After the conclusion of this production run the same cast continued perfoming on a national tour that next went to [[City, State]] X2 and eventually continued in [[City, State]] X3, [[City, State]] X4, [[City, State]] X5 and is scheduled to go to [[City, State]] X6, . . . [[City, State]] X#.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck out some things that aren't really encyclopedic when it comes to the musical as a literary work. This is what we're trying to stress in the articles -- that the musical exists apart from its productions. Notable productions, obviously, are important, but we'd rather express the importance of the work as a whole than any incarnation of it. Putting too much emphasis on productions invites systemic bias. —  MusicMaker5376 15:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like that, Tony - clear, concise, full of what is needed. As well as the things MusicMaker struck out, I'd suggest that the casting agent is unimportant... Now, as our resident Chicago expert (meant in the nicest possible way!) would you be able to source the info and put it into the article...? - Dafyd (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, re: casting agent. I meant to strike that out.
Also, the problem with mentioning the cities that the tour visits is that the tours usually visit in the neighborhood of 30 cities, which, admittedly, is too many to prozize. When you take into account shows that have multiple touring companies internationally, it becomes a little unwieldly. —  MusicMaker5376 15:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you make something encyclopedic out of either of these tour details: http://www.cheappremiumtickets.com/Theatre/Wicked_Tickets.cfm or http://www.ticketspecialists.com/theater/wicked_tickets.htm ?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Each production section will vary slightly from my vision no doubt. In Chicago, much was made of Opray Winfrey bringing The Color Purple (musical) to Chicago since she starred in Steven Spielberg's The Color Purple (film) and since she is OPRAH. I am not sure what her official role was in its local presentation, but it seems she was a sponsor of some sort and this would be notable and encyclopedic in the Chicago section of Color Purple. I imagine for some other productions such notable facts may emerge. I will look up things for Wicked Chicago.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't checked those links, but, yeah Oprah is The Mighty O -- she takes a crap and it's notable. She is the producer of the Broadway prod of Purple -- in the course of try-outs and whatnot, it went to a couple of towns. Having Oprah as producer is notable. —  MusicMaker5376 16:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In those links, it doesn't look like it goes past a couple of months ago. Does anyone know if the tour has stopped? And, Tony, I would ask that you bear in mind that tours go on for years and years -- Jesus Christ Superstar is still touring; I think with a couple of companies. So, while Wicked has only hit 15 or so cities since the tour started, it can really grow to LOTS AND LOTS. I really don't know if that's something we want to invite into the article. —  MusicMaker5376 17:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The tour is still going - according to the official site, it's booking until August 31 in Ottawa... Also, Tony, thanks for adding that bit about the Behind the Emerald Curtain tours - it's done in NYC and LA, too, so we should probably come up with a global way of mentioning it. - Dafyd (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the "Other Productions" section can just be "Productions"? A paragraph of the Behind the Scenes would be appropriate there. —  MusicMaker5376 18:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a bit. I think someone may want to review it and rearrange it a bit for flow. I would still like to know a bit about who brought it to Chicago and anything I could about its opening, but the encyclopedic nature of that is a matter of opinion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's covered in the Stone quote: "the producers created a new road show...." —  MusicMaker5376 20:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It seems like we have enough now about the Chicago production. This musical has lots of productions (and it will keep having more and more), and if each of them gets this much info, the production section will be too long. The original production should be the longest, most complete production description (see my suggestions above for what info is still needed). I also agree that we should not name all the cities on the National tour. Maybe we could name a couple of the longest stops, like this, "setting American touring records in St. Louis and [city], among others, and stopping at an expected total of 31 cities through the scheduled end of the tour in 2009." Nice job, everyone - the article is making good progress. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just think that a line like that is going to invite people to add their hometown: something that would be supported by sources and, therefore, difficult to justify deletion.
But, yes, this article is rocking my socks. —  MusicMaker5376 21:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Above I said "A featured article should have a paragraph or section dedicated to each major run." As you are all aware I am a generalist who pops in on various Chicago related articles. I don't know very much about any specific topic and Wicked (musical) is no different. I was trying to make a suggestion related to what I feel should be added for Chicago which I feel is a major run. I think most notable musicals will have a main run in NYC or London and at least one other (a National tour). The demographics of Chicago are changing with numerous downtown high rise condominiums and apartments being built within two miles of the Theatre district. Chicago is already at the head of the class of second run tour cities and will become more prominent as more potential patrons find themselves living proximal to this form of entertainment. I don't think the article is improved with a couple dozen repeating blurbs with trivial content. I think the article is improved with major secondary runs such as Chicago having a substantial section. I think that more than a half dozen is probably excessive and that the rest should be lumped together as other production runs. I am not exactly sure where to draw the line, but when there is nothing linkable other than the date and city we may have gone to far. A production with notable performers in a notable theatre may deserve a separate section, but as the article stands it seems there are several too many production subsections. In the context of this article, I think only runs that are contributing newsworthy records and performances should have separate sections. I do not understand the likely eventualities of this musical with respect to global production, but think there should be a few less production subsections.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you think the "productions" section in general should be shorter, but the section on the run in Chicago should be longer?? Is that a fair summary? Happy‑melon 18:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think I agree with Tony, to a point. Looking at, for example, Les Mis, there's no way we would ever have sections for every production, and I think Wicked should probably be the same. Many of the productions are not particularly notable in their own right - the only thing is, I would include Chicago in the "not very notable" category (as well as LA) - simply because, in terms of the other productions, it's nothing terribly special. It's not different to the other productions artistically, its records can be mentioned elsewhere... That said, for the time being, while there are only 8 productions worldwide, I think each deserves a section. There's enough that's notable about each. All the domestic (US) productions have broken records, and the international runs are important in terms of the musical's development (translations, reworkings, record breaking). If, in the future, the productions section gets unwieldy, it can be scaled back and summarised. - Dafyd (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for giving the wrong impression. Chicago is currently accorded approximately the exact amount of dedicated text space that it warrants. I do wish I had taken this photo after the leaves had fallen or thought about retaking it yesterday when I walked by yesterday. I should be careful when I say shorter because this is an entry to serve the international audience and not our parochial domestic interests in the musical. It is not clear to me why other productions have notable statements to make other than that it is playing in a particular city. I think sections should be given for encyclopedic entries of note. It is possible to make an entry encyclopedic with non-notable info on this subject, but as I try to explain above we must strike a balance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can cross that bridge when we get to it - personally I would say in that instance a List of productions of Wicked would be in order - that would make a nice FL to go with this (fingers crossed) FA!! Hell, bring Wicked (album), List of awards and nominations for the musical Wicked and Wicked (musical) cast lists up to FA and FL, and we've got ourselves a featured topic :D. Returning to reality, however, I agree with you Dafyd: Chicago is no more notable than LA, Stuttgart or Melbourne, we just have (thanks to Tony's wealth of local knowledge) a lot more to write about for that particular production. The Chicago section currently looks pretty well perfect to me. Happy‑melon 21:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum. I think a 7 production section should be written as such. I disagree that Chi and LA are not notable. I think from the perspective of artistic differences they are probably rehashes of broadway. From the international encyclopedic perspective it is newsworthy to be the longest running broadway musical and all-time top grossing performance for a city such as Chicago. I also feel that since notable performers have assumed the lead roles it has a very sectionable character. I don't follow the LA newswires and do not know what might make a section for LA encyclopedic. I think an international reader should be able to find Chicago info in one place. I am not sure what an international reader should want to know about other productions, but like I said we should strike a balance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
←What I meant by "no more notable..." is that as and when the production section grows too long, I will support removing both Chicago and LA (and Osaka, Stuttgart, etc) to a subpage (probably List of productions of Wicked) and summarising these productions on the main page. The Broadway and West End productions, however, I would leave on the main page if/when that division occurs. Wikipedia not being paper, there's no reason to remove the Chicago information, but I think it would lose a fight to stay on the main page when Amsterdam or Tokyo get moved away. I hope that clarifies my position. Happy‑melon 21:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two events that are equally notable do not deserve equal treatement on WP. One may have a plethora of free pictures while the other has only copyrighted pictures and forbids picture taking. I would prefer to see more about the former. Additionally, an encyclopedic event may happen at one and not the other. One may spawn numerous secondary accounts due to freedom of the press while another may have no secondary sources for WP to cite. Finally, one may have a better tertiary voice to relay the secondary source information. In each of these cases, events of equal note will not and should not get equal billing on WP. Let's say Chicago's production is on the same level for artistic notability, it's encyclopedic notability and viability may be far superior. Right now amsterdam is in the commons section and Tokyo has nothing encyclopedic included in its subsection making it a better candidate to be moved to the common heap than Chicago. It is very common for two subjects of equal notability to have very different levels of detail here on WP. One Tony Award winner could have a stub-class article while another of equal note may have a GA-class article. We don't treat the two articles equally. The same can be said of subsections of an article. Where encyclopedic information is presented it is treated differently then cases where it is absent.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is precisely what I'm saying, except I would replace "deserve" with "require". In fact, two events which are equally notable should have equal treatment... but it's not our fault if, for the reasons you describe, that is not possible. Happy‑melon 09:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to comment on the statement that the Chicago section is a bucnh of local news. There is a huge difference between international level encyclopedic content and local new. E.g., Local news would be that a Buffalo, New York national tour stop broke a four day weekend box office gross record. Something between would be that a St. Louis, Missouri four week tour stop set a city record for attendance/gross. Setting an All-time performance gross and broadway musical run lengthr record for Chicago is international encyclopedic content. In the former cases, they only become encyclopedic as a part of a list of similar records, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In an unrelated series of edits related to the above statement can you tell me if you think these edits] at The Color Purple (musical) added encyclopedic content.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not bad, but overdoing it a little. I'd think that Mayor Daley has been to quite a few opening nights in his tenure as mayor. —  MusicMaker5376 03:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That, of course, begs the question did he attend the Wicked opening night? It also begs the question how many productions of Wicked, or the Color Purple had such press coverage or red carpet attendees? Furthermore, it begs the question how many cities generate that type of press coverage for an opening?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But, again, it's Oprah. In Chicago. The notability of that event is somewhat skewed -- especially in the amount of ink it's going to receive. —  MusicMaker5376 16:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair Use Concern; I am not well versed on FairUse. Someone who understands Fair Use well needs to check all those Fair Use images. WP:OVERLINKing should also be examined; for example, why is lion linked, and why are all those well-known cities linked? Words commonly known to most English speakers do not need to be linked. See WP:MOSLINK. There are unformatted incomplete references, example: 'Wicked' Shatters Box Office Records Worldwide. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't assume that just because you know plenty about these cities, that no one else would consider the links to provide useful context. Linking "lion", however, is a little excessive - I'll have a look at those and the references. I am also not a Fair use expert, but I doubt it represents a problem. Happy‑melon 19:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I re-linked lion so that it points to Cowardly Lion. I think that's where it went before, but I'm not sure. Since that's the lion in question, it makes sense to link there, right? —  MusicMaker5376 21:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It was originally linked simply to lion!! Good idea to link to the Oz version. Happy‑melon 21:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will de-link the repeated names of the actors in the production section. I will leave them linked once in the section (even if they have been linked somewhere further up in the article), but then de-link them in the rest of the section, OK? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Headings

Comment: Might it work better if we cut down on the number of headings in the production section? Have a heading for each of the English-language productions, but then have "Foreign-language productions" including Osaka, Tokyo, and Stuttgart and "Planned productions" for the others. —  MusicMaker5376 03:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's too bad. You could consolidate the foreign language productions if you don't think there's much more to be said about each of them, but Australia will open pretty soon, so I think it's OK where it is. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Wicked_(musical)/archive1&oldid=1078809391"