Talk:Marcelle (musical)
Latest comment: 8 months ago by Bruxton in topic Did you know nomination
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | A fact from Marcelle (musical) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 April 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
Did you know nomination
edit- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Bruxton talk 17:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
( )
Louise Gunning as Marcelle
- ... that as the title character in Marcelle actress Louise Gunning (pictured) portrayed a partial trouser role in which she masqueraded as both a male soldier and his sister? Source: Dietz, Dan (2022). "Marcelle". The Complete Book of 1900s Broadway Musicals. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. p. 512-513. ISBN 9781538168943.
Created by 4meter4 (talk). Self-nominated at 03:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Marcelle (musical); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
- Reviewing. @4meter4: If you have done more than 20 DYKs, 2 QPQ credits are required because DYK is in emergency mode. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
New enough (submitted on day of creation), long enough (3625 characters). Adequate sourcing including books by two academic publishers and New York Times. Neutrally written and no apparent copyvio. The section covering critical reception would be a bit more balanced if it elaborated on the critique of the book (e.g. that the plot was "old hat"), but not a deal breaker. The hook is OK – AGF on the source – though I can't help wondering if it's accurate to say she was "masquerading" as his sister. Image is from 1908 and in the public domain. Although 1 QPQ has been provided, this is the nominator's 64th DYK nomination (per the tool), so 1 additional QPQ is required due to emergency backlog mode. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Cielquiparle Thank you for the review. I have reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Geogaddi as a second QPQ. I expanded on the critique of the book. I agree that she wouldn't be masquerading as herself. I've modified the text accordingly and am proposing the alt hook below.4meter4 (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Alt1: ... that as the title character in Marcelle actress Louise Gunning (pictured) portrayed a Parisian barmaid who masquerades as her brother, a soldier, making the character a partial trouser role?
- @4meter4: I think ALT1 contains too much detail; there is nothing to click for. Ironically, a sister pretending to be her brother is "old hat" (very Shakespearean)...so it's not all that interesting. HOWEVER...what is attention-getting about that hook is the last part. And hence I suggest:
- ALT1a: ... that as the title character in Marcelle, actress Louise Gunning (pictured) portrayed a Parisian barmaid in a partial trouser role?
Approving. Up to promoter to choose hook or open up for more workshopping at WP:DYKNA. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Cielquiparle I disagree. The alt1a hook is inaccurate and reads as nonsense. There's no such thing as a barmaid (female gender presenting) being a trouser role (male gender presenting). It's essential that the concept of gender role juxtaposition be preserved or the hook just doesn't make sense. There needs to be a mention of "barmaid masquerading as a male soldier" or the hook just doesn't work. The true meaning of the hook fact is lost in your trimmed down version. If we need a shorter hook, this isn't it. Frankly, I think the alt1 hook is perfectly crafted and don't understand the semi-objection being made against it. It's certainly withink DYK policy, and it reads well in my opinion.4meter4 (talk) 03:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- If ALT1a is inaccurate, ALT1 is too, seeing as they both describe the role as "a partial trouser role". I agree with Cielquiparle and Bruxton at WT:DYK; ALT1 is not "perfectly crafted" but instead tries to insert too much detail. I suppose it is mildly interesting, so we could run it as a mediocre hook if the nominator really wants. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29 That just simply is not true. alt1 is accurate and clear. Alt1a is unclear to the point of being inaccurate in my opinion. What does it mean to be “portray a barmaid in a partial trouser role”? I don’t think that language is at all clear, and would assume from reading it that the writer didn’t know what a trouser role was. I certainly wouldn’t get from that any sort of gender disguise or female character portraying a male character; hence the partial trouser role description seeming wrong in the alt1a hook. What makes it a trouser part is the male soldier disguise not the barmaid part of the performance, and what makes it a partial trouser role is the barmaid being disguised as a male soldier. The hook must have both gender presentation aspects of the character described clearly in the hook or the descriptor of “partial trouser role” does not read as true. 4meter4 (talk) 05:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
ALT1 is "perfectly crafted" in the sense that it contains all the information you need to understand what is going on, such that you don't have to read the article. WP:DYKINT clearly says that The most interesting hooks are the ones that leave the reader wanting to know more
. Based on the comments of other editors, ALT1 fails the "interesting" test, and it's clear the nominator rejects ALT1a in its place. @4meter4: Can you propose some ALT hooks that are different? Cielquiparle (talk) 10:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)- I won't because the hook is interesting and, probably the most interesting thing about this work. I honestly am nonplussed at the reaction here to this particular hook which to me would make me want to the read the article. I don't think that a better hook can be made. I contest Cielquiparle's opinion of the hook and think the most recent review isn't fair or in alignment with policy. I note that earlier Cielquiparle approved Alt1 as an option in the statement "Up to promoter to choose hook" in the original tick. So it seems not right to turn around now and say it isn't ok when it was ticked as a viable option earlier simply because I didn't like the other option because I think it reads confusingly. 4meter4 (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- The promoter chose the other hook because they did not feel the first was viable, and you rejected that, so here we are; this nomination does not exist ina vacuum. Cielquiparle, perhaps ALT1b: ... that actress Louise Gunning (pictured) portrayed a partial trouser role as the title character in Marcelle? which seems to remove the "inaccuracy". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- Or ALT1c: ... that as the title character in Marcelle actress Louise Gunning (pictured) portrayed a Parisian barmaid who masquerades as her brother, a soldier? as not many people know what a trouser role is, meaning that DYKINT is a little unsatisfied. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for helping AirshipJungleman29. Both of those are fine in terms of accuracy and readability. If the consensus is that they are better for a wider audience, I guess I would be ok with either ALT1c or ALT1b. The theatre scholar in me is more interested in the partial trouser role quote which struck me as unusual as there are not many of those in the musical theatre/ opera canon, but I take it that what interests me as a scholar and strikes me as unusual might be too esoteric for a general audience. Probably the alt1c hook would be most appealing to readers. 4meter4 (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- We have some improved hooks now kindly provided by AirshipJungleman29. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for helping AirshipJungleman29. Both of those are fine in terms of accuracy and readability. If the consensus is that they are better for a wider audience, I guess I would be ok with either ALT1c or ALT1b. The theatre scholar in me is more interested in the partial trouser role quote which struck me as unusual as there are not many of those in the musical theatre/ opera canon, but I take it that what interests me as a scholar and strikes me as unusual might be too esoteric for a general audience. Probably the alt1c hook would be most appealing to readers. 4meter4 (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- I won't because the hook is interesting and, probably the most interesting thing about this work. I honestly am nonplussed at the reaction here to this particular hook which to me would make me want to the read the article. I don't think that a better hook can be made. I contest Cielquiparle's opinion of the hook and think the most recent review isn't fair or in alignment with policy. I note that earlier Cielquiparle approved Alt1 as an option in the statement "Up to promoter to choose hook" in the original tick. So it seems not right to turn around now and say it isn't ok when it was ticked as a viable option earlier simply because I didn't like the other option because I think it reads confusingly. 4meter4 (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29 That just simply is not true. alt1 is accurate and clear. Alt1a is unclear to the point of being inaccurate in my opinion. What does it mean to be “portray a barmaid in a partial trouser role”? I don’t think that language is at all clear, and would assume from reading it that the writer didn’t know what a trouser role was. I certainly wouldn’t get from that any sort of gender disguise or female character portraying a male character; hence the partial trouser role description seeming wrong in the alt1a hook. What makes it a trouser part is the male soldier disguise not the barmaid part of the performance, and what makes it a partial trouser role is the barmaid being disguised as a male soldier. The hook must have both gender presentation aspects of the character described clearly in the hook or the descriptor of “partial trouser role” does not read as true. 4meter4 (talk) 05:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- If ALT1a is inaccurate, ALT1 is too, seeing as they both describe the role as "a partial trouser role". I agree with Cielquiparle and Bruxton at WT:DYK; ALT1 is not "perfectly crafted" but instead tries to insert too much detail. I suppose it is mildly interesting, so we could run it as a mediocre hook if the nominator really wants. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Cielquiparle I disagree. The alt1a hook is inaccurate and reads as nonsense. There's no such thing as a barmaid (female gender presenting) being a trouser role (male gender presenting). It's essential that the concept of gender role juxtaposition be preserved or the hook just doesn't make sense. There needs to be a mention of "barmaid masquerading as a male soldier" or the hook just doesn't work. The true meaning of the hook fact is lost in your trimmed down version. If we need a shorter hook, this isn't it. Frankly, I think the alt1 hook is perfectly crafted and don't understand the semi-objection being made against it. It's certainly withink DYK policy, and it reads well in my opinion.4meter4 (talk) 03:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- @4meter4: I think ALT1 contains too much detail; there is nothing to click for. Ironically, a sister pretending to be her brother is "old hat" (very Shakespearean)...so it's not all that interesting. HOWEVER...what is attention-getting about that hook is the last part. And hence I suggest:
- I guess it is sorted. Thanks AirshipJungleman29, 4meter4 and Cielquiparle. Bruxton (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Poor editing judgment
edit@ Lachielmao This edit displayed incredibly poor editorial judgement. Not only was the content cited to an academic reference work by a theatre scholar from a major academic publisher (I have added a second scholarly work so there are now two theatre reference works with this content cited), but in no way was the tone of the content non-encyclopedic or written like an add. I notice that you have removed content in other articles with similar editing summaries. If those edits also removed quality content we may need to have a more serious discussion about Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Removing quality material cited to high quality sources is disruptive and not in line with a number of community policy standards. 4meter4 (talk) 04:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)