Talk:A Christmas Story: The Musical

A Christmas Story: The Musical was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 2, 2024	Good article nominee	Not listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 9, 2013.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that 67th Tony Awards Best Musical nominee A Christmas Story: The Musical was adapted from a 1980s film and Best Revival of a Play nominee The Trip to Bountiful was adapted into a 1980s film?

Musical Theatre

A Christmas Story: The Musical is part of WikiProject Musical Theatre, organized to improve and complete musical theatre articles and coverage on Wikipedia. You can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Musical TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject Musical TheatreTemplate:WikiProject Musical TheatreMusical Theatre articles

Holidays: Christmas Low‑importance

	Holidays portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Holidays, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of holidays on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HolidaysWikipedia:WikiProject HolidaysTemplate:WikiProject HolidaysHolidays articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Christmas task force (assessed as Low-importance).

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A Christmas Story: The Musical. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on A Christmas Story: The Musical. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Musical numbers?

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As far as I can tell, the list of musical numbers on the page matches the LIVE Fox version of the show, but I have the original cast recording of the show and neither the names of the songs on this list nor the order of the songs match the cast recording. So my question is, does this list reflect the "official" score/libretto of the show? I've tried to do a bit of research but haven't come across anything, so if anyone happens to have an official Christmas Story Musical libretto, I feel this list should be based off either that or the original cast recording, and not the Fox version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.46.59.229 (talk) 04:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

Latest comment: 6 months ago5 comments1 person in discussion

Unsuccessful. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:A Christmas Story: The Musical/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 13:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'll take this review; it will be used in the WikiCup and the ongoing backlog drive. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

General comments

The nominator is not the primary contributor to the article, having around 9.8% of current authorship. I do not see if the consent of significant contributors has been obtained per WP:GAN/I#N1.
There is significant uncited material in the article, which needs to be cited per GA criterion 2b).
Certain sections seem unnecessary to me. These include: the "Characters" section, which in effect duplicates the "Casts" section; the "Musical numbers" section which in effect duplicates the "Synopsis" section; and the "Nominated awards" and "Original Broadway production" sections which in effect duplicate each other.
Some citations are inaccessible (e.g. Gans 2019) or not pointing to a relevant page (e.g. citation 17 pointing to [1]).
The prose is not concise, often reverting to simple lists of names: see the "New York City" and "National tour" subsections for examples.
Additional images would be nice; the infobox image needs a caption.
The "Critical reception" section consists of two lengthy quotes. These could easily be paraphrased per WP:LIMITED to avoid copyright infringement. More reviews, perhaps of different productions, would be helpful for criterion 3a). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi TonyTheTiger, are you planning on returning to this? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add topic