Talk:Fun Home (musical)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 05:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 05:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 4, 2014, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

1. NOTE: Please respond, below my entire GA Review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
2. Lede intro sect = The first paragraph is the only paragraph and it's a bit big in size. Please divide it into at least 2 paragraphs. Then please expand the lede intro sect a bit more, per WP:LEAD, so it can function as an adequate standalone summary of the entire article's contents.
3. Number of cites after sentences = on non-contentious material, no need for more than three (3) cites after sentences. Please trim these down as it looks quite odd in the text to have more than three (3) cites at ends of sentences.
4. Cites in lede intro sect = no need for cites at all in lede intro sect. None of the material is controversial or contentious. Please make sure it is sourced later in the article, per WP:LEADCITE.
5. Body text = a bunch of one-sentence-long-paragraphs and two-sentence-long-paragraphs. Good rule of thumb for paragraph size is four sentences. Please expand and/or merge these short paragraphs into other places to ease readability and structural presentation for the reader.
6. Might consider adding a See also and/or Further reading sects.
7. Notable newspapers and publications should be blue wikilinked in the Critical reception sect.
8. Problem: "Fun Home is a musical adapted by Lisa Kron and Jeanine Tesori from Alison Bechdel's 2006 graphic memoir of the same name. As in the book, the story concerns the father-daughter relationship between Alison Bechdel and her father Bruce Bechdel." -- This info is in the lede but not in the main body text of article except for Plot summary sect but that is for presentation of the fictional version. Need to add Background sect to ground the reader in factual context, and add it above the Development and production sect. Per WP:LEAD, the lede intro sect should not introduce new info not later in the article, but rather summarize the article itself and be sourced to cited sentences later in the article.

2. Factually accurate?: No issues here. Duly cited throughout to appropriate sources in properly formatted citations.

3. Broad in coverage?: The article is indeed thorough, covering major aspects of subject in good amount of depth.

4. Neutral point of view?: No issues here. Appears neutrally presented, with multiple points of view represented in Critical reception section.

5. Article stability? No issues here. Upon inspection of article edit history I'm seeing some IP edits with no edit summaries, be on the lookout for that in the future please in case they may add unsourced info, etc. Edit history of article is stable going back over one month. Similar with talk page history, no outstanding major conflicts either.

6. Images?: No issues here. One image used File:Fun Home musical original Playbill cover, October.jpg, with appropriate fair use rationale on image page.

NOTE: Please respond, below my entire GA Review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Response

OK, I think all these issues have been addressed. Please let me know if any of them need further attention.

1. Specific responses to points under "Well written?" below:
2. The lede has been divided into three paragraphs. I think that with the added "Background" section, the lede is now an adequate summary of the remainder of the article; the only main body sections which are not summarized in the lede are the character list, the plot summary and the list of songs. I'm not sure how or whether those should be summarized in the lede; the only thing that I can see possibly adding is a bit more detail on the plot (though that would be difficult, considering the play's structure). Let me know whether you think that would be helpful.
3. The citations have been trimmed. The only sentence which now has more than three (3) citations is the one which lists the awards won by the play; those are necessary, because each award has its own citation.
4. Citations in the lede have been removed, except for the citation of the June Thomas Slate quotation, since WP:LEADCITE says that direct quotations require an inline citation. I was uncertain about whether the citations in the infobox should be removed or not — is the infobox considered part of the lede for citation purposes or not?
5. Many of the short paragraphs have been consolidated or expanded. A few remain; these are distinct in subject matter from the paragraphs which precede or follow them, and so do not lend themselves easily to consolidation. If this is still a concern, I can work on them further.
6. Further reading section added.
7. Publications in Critical reception linked, with the exception of Mic, which appears not to have a Wikipedia article yet.
8. Background section added; all information in lede now present in article body.

Thank you for the review; please let me know if any of these matters requires further attention. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Passed as GA

Passed as GA. Great job, I've never had a GA nominator so incredibly responsive to all my suggestions, thank you!!! — Cirt (talk) 08:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

What, never? Thanks! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)