Talk:The Prince (play)

Video timestamps

@SyntaxZombie: the Q&A and BTS are great sources to add, but is it possible for you to add timestamps for the claims they're used for here? It's a bit of a big ask to expect a reader to watch the whole videos through if they want to verify the information is correct. — Bilorv (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

This is a good idea. Implemented :) SyntaxZombie (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! — Bilorv (talk) 09:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Plot

MOS:FILMPLOT recommends between 400 and 700 words for a plot summary, and I think that applies here as a filmed version of a play (and a good baseline for how many words we compress 2 hours or so of fiction into). We're currently at 736 words, so just a touch over. — Bilorv (talk) 10:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

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:The Prince (play)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: SyntaxZombie (talk · contribs) 05:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Averageuntitleduser (talk · contribs) 16:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Abigail rocks! Excited to learn about the play. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@SyntaxZombie: whoops, I was unaware of your inactivity. Please ping me in the next 3 or so days if you are still available for a review. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Averageuntitleduser hi, thanks for taking on the review! I'm around, just haven't done much editing in the last month or so :) —SyntaxZombie (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Fabulous! I'll get on with it then. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Well-written

A rather entertaining read, and the "Reception" section flows very nicely; I found few issues with it.

• Use the full "William Shakespeare" at first mention in the lead, article, and infobox.
• This plot section is a touch over the 700 words recommended by MOS:FILMPLOT. Consider looking it over to rephrase or further summarize certain ideas. Perhaps you could excise some words. This isn't a firm rule, but it will help the article's readability.
• "Hotspur", "Prince Hal", and other characters may be useful links.
• The explanatory note may not be necessary; the opening paragraph of MOS:GENDERID already advises us to use those pronouns.
• Jen finds herself reunited with Sam, Hotspur finds herself at her home — should the comma should be a "while"? Also, out of curiousity, Hotspur is at home, but where do Jen and Sam reunite?
• Consider reordering the "Production" section to make it more chronological, e.g. casting and director info in the second paragraph, previews before the premiere. This may also help with the short paragraph lengths.

Verifiable with no original research

Many sources appear reliable and the handful of interviews/behind the scenes seem reasonable for what they cite. BroadwayWorld's news coverage is churnalism at its worst, but its reviews and awards, as well as this author, seem to hold more weight. I'll accept it (though I did replace it in the "Production" section). The Latch and its publisher are throwing me off a bit, but they have consulted Thorn and I suppose are adequate enough for the production and background info.

• Plots are presumably cited to the work, so the "Special Edition" cite may not be necessary.
• Could you defend The Review Hub's inclusion? It no doubt seems to be reliable, but it doesn't seem very prominent.

Broad in its coverage

I've squeezed a bit more out of the existing ones, but the major sources are in use. There are also some good finds, namely Diva and Big Issue.

• The "programme notes" sentence in the lead should also be in the article.
• Their positivity was to be expected, but this PinkNews review has some good material. It could perhaps replace The Reviews Hub.
• Would the Q&A and behind the scenes have any more specific info to offer about the writing or rehearsal process? It's great that you're not overrelying on them, but could you add at most one or two more sentences?

Neutral

No promotional tone. All opinions of the reviewers are attributed.

Stable

No recent content disputes or edit wars.

Illustrated

Standard infobox poster with a good fair use rationale.

Summary

I do apologize, I've been having a busy week, but I will finish this this up tomorrow! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your feedback, @Averageuntitleduser. I'm having a bit of a busy week myself, so this might take a little longer on my end as well. Apologies in advance!

No worries, @SyntaxZombie: we're not in a hurry. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Things I fixed so far:

• Use the full "William Shakespeare"
• Links to Hotspur and Prince Hal
• I feel like the "Special Edition" citation should be in the article somewhere, right? You're probably right, though, I'll take it out for now
• "Jen finds herself reunited with Sam, Hotspur finds herself at her home" changed to "...reunited with Sam and Hotspur..." Jen and Sam actually reunite at Hotspur's castle, too, just not with Hotspur or Lady Kate in the room.

Things I'll get to soon:

• Reordering the "Production" section
• Finding a place for the "programme notes" sentence to go
• Incorporating more from the PinkNews review
• Incorporating more from the Q&A and BTS

Things to discuss:

• I've been meaning to rework the plot section. I removed a few more words and it is currently just below 700, but looking at some of the great summaries over in Wikipedia:WikiProject Film this should probably be much shorter; it contains a lot of unnecessary detail.
  • Good work! On length and readibility, this section definitely passes GA. But feel free to continue workshopping it if you'd wish. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Regarding the explanatory note, I see what you are saying with MOS:GENDERID, but I hesitate to get rid of it completely. After watching the play for the first time, I wouldn't have been confident about which pronouns to use without the sources cited in the note. I was also anticipating that a well-intentioned volunteer might mistakenly change Hotspur's pronouns since she is misgendered about 10 times more than [antonym of misgendered] in the dialogue. But maybe that is a "cross that bridge on the talk page if we come to it" sort of a situation.
  • Ooh, you're right. I think using it as a message for other editors is a good idea. And I've come around to this: the amount she's misgendered in the play is reason enough for inclusion. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• I don't think I would be able to defend including The Reviews Hub, most of the critical reception section comes from a bunch of work User:Bilorv did on the Abigail Thorn article. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abigail_Thorn&diff=prev&oldid=1125556569). I'll leave a comment on their user page in case they want to chime in (they have contributed a lot to this article as well).

—SyntaxZombie (talk) 05:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

As you point out, Averageuntitleduser, The Reviews Hub has an editorial team, no evidence of doing reviews for pay or undisclosed advertising, and a corrections policy. As a specialist publication within British/Irish theatre it's not too surprising we don't have an article on it. Based on the timing of their review I think they were invited to the press night performance of the play alongside the other publications included in the article. I think it's worth including but I wouldn't object to its removal if that's what other people want. — Bilorv (talk) 10:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm convinced! It's not too often a specialist source seems as promising as this one, and I never considered they might've been invited to the opening show. Combined, the website seems prominent enough, it's at least leagues above a blog. Besides, its explanations seem well-articulated, so removing the review wouldn't necessarily do the article a favor. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Ready for second pass

Hi @Averageuntitleduser,

All the comments and replies and such have made this page pretty messy, so I'm just creating a new topic for your second pass.

I have re-ordered the "Production" section and incorporated the PinkNews review, as well as info about the rehearsal/writing process from the Q&A and BTS. I couldn't find a great place for the "programme notes" sentence, but I noted the influence of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead in the first paragraph of the "Production" section. Hopefully that satisfies the GA requirements.

I also added a nugget about trans representation in the cast for any future productions at the end of the "Production" section.

I welcome your feedback :) —SyntaxZombie (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, school is becoming a crunch as of late, but here goes!

• The "Production" section feels slightly scattered. Could we group it into three paragraphs? The first one with background info seems good as is, perhaps the second could discuss the cast and crew, and the third could be about the play's run and Nebula's involvement. I think it's worth a go. Of course, structure and tweak it to your intuition!

In the meantime, I've refocused the lead, feel free to adjust it. I'll post more comments here if I have them. And indeed, Thorn's thoughts on the trans rep is a nice addition, alongside the others :) Averageuntitleduser (talk) 01:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@SyntaxZombie: Apologies for not getting on top of this and not pinging earlier. I hope you don't mind, I've rearranged the "Production" section to give this review the final push. I've not done a formal spot-check, but I became very acquainted with the sources during the review and am confident in the article's integrity. Overall, I'm happy to promote, congrats! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 02:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

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.