Talk:From Here to Eternity (musical)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Zanimum (talk · contribs) 16:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll take this on. -- Zanimum (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC) Synopsis

Passing synopsis. It could be longer, without harm, but I do appreciate the brevity. (Another GAN I'm reviewing takes one character in a 90-minute movie, and gives me about a thousand words of plot.) The only thing you should consider in the long run is the referencing. It is a little oddball, in that every reference is only used once. Only the Daily Express mentions Lorene? Only Broadway World mentions insubordination? If you could double up references a couple times, that would help strengthen things.

In articles i create i like to individually reference as much as possible, some may over lap others but i feel this adds to the feeling an article is better sourced, and ultimately helps when expanding an article. I Certainly could double up where refs agree but i wouldn't want to remove any references as a result.Blethering Scot 20:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I certainly wasn't suggesting stripping references away, just showing that multiple articles mention the same plot points. It's not a big deal to me, one way or another. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Background

• Was Charles Scribner and Sons commonly abbreviated to just Scribner?

The BBC refer to as Scribner, as does the NY Times. Im not adverse to including the full name if this aids understanding. Blethering Scot 19:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

No, that's good. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• Academy Awards, not Academy Award's.

√ Fixed.Blethering Scot 19:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• "some no longer fitted" I think you could get away with just "fit"

Is Fitted not better past tense than fit is.Blethering Scot 20:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Two of three references in one sentence are to [26] The Daily Telegraph, so really, you only need the second reference.

√ Fixed.Blethering Scot 20:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Rice quote needs to be fixed, as I dearly hope the lyricist doesn't refer to himself as "i" (lowercase).

√ Fixed.Blethering Scot 19:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Kaylie Jones' quote should really have a comma between scenes and because.

√ Fixed.Blethering Scot 19:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• I think that the sentence about Jones granting rights on the condition the original book was used should be presented earlier, perhaps even the second sentence in this paragraph. It relates more to the earlier discussion than the later.

√ Fixed.Blethering Scot 20:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• "The uncensored version of the novel was released in May 2011." In my mind, this sounds like an actual hardcover release, but one of the other articles you reference refers to it as an ebook. Was it just digital distribution?

You can certainly purchase as an ebook or a physical edition now. Ive looked and the ebook was definitely released in May 2011, by Open Road, although there also appears to be a bound version of the same text by this publisher. Penguin released a new physical copy and ebook in 2013. The penguin bound copy is what the theatre sell. Sources do seem to initially say ebook. Ive changed to "The uncensored version of the novel was released in May 2011, initially as an ebook." Is that more confusing or less so?Blethering Scot 19:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Cool, leave the article as is there. I was essentially meaning if it was only an ebook, then it was treated as less of a monumental "hey, look at the real story" than if they invested in a print run. Which they did, so that's good.

Themes

• Recommend for 13+, or no one under 13 will be admitted by the theatre?

Musical's are recommended not restricted, anyone can attend but they advise against it. Your not the only one commenting on that, someone changed it recently and was changed back.Blethering Scot 19:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Good, existing wording is correct then. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Production history

• The sentence about the advisory was hard to read. Perhaps "Former US Marine Ray Elliott, also head of a James Jones literary society, was hired to ensure an accurate picture of military life for the era."

√ Fixed. Blethering Scot 22:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Both ref 47 and ref 48 include "West End Live". Why not place both after the date? At various points, the article seems overly fragmented. Anything more than one interruption of a sentence for references gets distracting for casual readers.

√ Fixed I Prefer as a matter of practice to reference as many points individually as possible, however i concede this may not be helpful here.Blethering Scot 19:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Wiki is not paper, we should go with "two hours and 50 minutes", not "2hrs 50mins".

I agree with this.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

√ Fixed. Blethering Scot 16:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Are intermissions called intervals in Britain? I've never heard that word used in this context before.

An intermission is called an interval in the UK.Blethering Scot 19:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggest piping to entr'acte. I was asked to comment by Blethering Scot on my talk, as I've been involved in the past in this article.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

√ Fixed. Blethering Scot 16:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Piping works beautiful, thank you both. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• The [[Military Wives]] should be [[Military Wives|The Military Wives]]

√ Fixed.Blethering Scot 19:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Passing Music.

Critical reception

• Passing what's there.
• Are there any reviews by critics outside of the UK? Toronto Star's Richard Ouzianian [sp?] often does trans-Atlantic reviews, and the Wall Street Journal article you cite early in the article sounds like it might be a review (I'm reviewing your article offline, so I can't click through.)

Yes there is the Wall Street Journal one included in the article, although its before opening night and doesn't add too much not included. The only one i can find that adds something is this Bloomberg one which talks about the set. @Wehwalt: is better at that kind of thing, although its probably worth including.Blethering Scot 20:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the due diligence in scoping this out, we can safely pass on including foreign reviews then. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Passing Awards and nominations, Notes.

References

• Why is Ref 31 bolded?

Im unsure of the reason for this, in this edit by Wehwalt he states per mos.Blethering Scot 20:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

√ Fixed, was actually just a stray ' .Blethering Scot 22:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Passing External links.

Incidentally, that's quite the extensive reviewing/collaboration process on the talk page, especially considering it was spontaneous, rather than in a process like GAN or peer review. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments

I will work my way through the comments and reply. Also pinging @Wehwalt: who has contributed as much as me if not more.Blethering Scot 19:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I have replied to the majority of these now. Ive left the two in the production history as would like another opinion from Wehwalt, and I'm unsure of the bold reason as was cited per mos, unsure if a mistake or not.Blethering Scot 20:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

@Zanimum: I have now replied to all comments bar the bolding issue, awaiting further comments from reviewer.Blethering Scot 22:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually was just a stray ' , all done and ready to continue.Blethering Scot 22:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both, I don't believe there is anything else remaining, except to promote! -- Zanimum (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, this is only the 37th GA for "Theatre, musical theatre, dance and opera", which is astonishing when you think about it. Particular kudos for choosing an under represented subject to work on. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)