Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Me and Juliet/archive1

TCO review

Article concerns a lesser-known musical by Rodgers and Hammerstein. Obviously passing our notability criteria, yet still not a high demand topic. This is the third R&H play, I've reviewed, all of which were flops. I guess you did Carousel as well, which was a hit. Given you talk now of hanging up the R&H work, I wonder where it is all headed? Will you take a break and then do articles on the more notable plays (ones which Wiki readers will be more likely to open pages on, but where we lack an FA)? Will you do the bios for these fellows? Or something on musical theater overall? I just hope these individual articles on less notable subjects can somehow build to something even greater.

It is possible, but I'm unhappy with my experience trying to improve The King and I and so am planning to avoid the area of musical theatre for the foreseeable future.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I might be reading into things, but when I see in your nom statement that you are moving on, it somehow does not motivate me. I worry that that might show in the writing itself, too. If you can muster up some heart and love and interest in the flop, perhaps it juices the article and benefits the reader.

I was definitely letting my frustration show. However, I spent several days on this article and spent money to get the playbill (I already had the published script in the book which covers the first six musicals), please believe that I think this article meets the criteria.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

As usual, the research, writing, and construction are skilled. One major concern I have is the narrative description of the story. It just did not grab me. If you could rewrite that so it were more enjoyable, that would do a lot to make the article sparkler more. So, the story did not work on the stage (and people will likely not see the play)...still your description of the story might be capable of being fun despite that.

Major things were (paradoxically), it felt stachatto (in terms of event A happens, B happens, C happens) rather than a story that pulled me along as a plot. Also, it was hard to keep track of all the character names and songs. I think if you can shorten some of the sentences and paragraphs, this may make it easier to keep track of everything. Also (I'm not sure how to do this, but you are smart), if you can somehow think about suspense and conflict drawing us along (rather than sentence structure), perhaps you can make the thing flow better.

There is an excellent synopsis on this page for those who do not have the script. They've inserted Hammerstein's stage instructions verbatim in many places (as with the Act I finale, almost).--Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

IMAGES

• Seems good on permissions.

• I appreciate your work in getting the playbills. Kudos for doing that service for the reader! They are helpful as well.

They were not expensive and are nice souvenirs.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• I suggest doing a wider shot of the title image, so we can enjoy the pic a bit more. (I found on "Painted turtle" when SunC fattened our infobox and image, it made a big difference.)

Do you mean clip the blank space on the margin of the playbill?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but I think, just widen the whole infobox as is (see the example I gave)TCO (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• For the bottom shot, the whiskey is kinda cute, but I think more important to be able to see the image in article (without clicking). I would crop it, to cut the whiskey ad, then you can widen it more and not be messing with spilling into next section. Hopefully that allows reading the text on most monitors. (I'm on a decent sized laptop.)

I see your point, but I think the reader would marvel at the odd-size page they used back in the Fifties! I think the reader would realize you had clipped the bottom and would wonder. I suggest just leaving it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the content of the image (being able to read the text) is more important than a "picture of a piece of paper". Plus, have you checked on the copyright status of that bottle lable (I could fucking care less, by the way...just trying to influence you to make the text readable. TCO (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

What I found most interesting in that playbill credits page was the air raid siren notice! Is that some Cold War thing going on there, Wehwalt? Oh, and the warning about not lighting matches dates it all a bit as well! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 01:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'm intrigued by your trick of using published non copyright notice images and need to think about how I can use that for my own purposes.

Yes, between my political articles on the Fifties and these, I'm afraid I've not only driven a truck through the loophole but built an eight-lane highway! I suggest looking for free brochures on turtles from that era, they will almost certainly not have a copyright logo.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This reminds me of the desktop publishing I've done, always carefully putting a copyright notice somewhere obvious! One minor point is that it is not just a standard copyright notice you need to look for, but credits as well. If there is something saying "designed by" or "cover art by" or "printed by X for Y", then you need to double-check. Carcharoth (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

How are the images now? Incidentally, the front cover is slightly misprinted, the design is slightly rotated a couple of degrees right, it is most visible if you look at the left edge of the cover vs. the left edge of the design. Nothing to be done about it, limits of technology in 1954.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I played with the bottom image caption and width. For the top one, make it fatter (not sure, SunCreator can help maybe, the whole box can expand somehow. Also ditch the caption on the infobox image.TCO (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

INFOBOX

• I think in this article, the infobox adds little. The info is in first para of the lead (which is pretty nicely short anyhow). It doesn't have minutia like the cast list (or the population of a city as a city article would have or that sort of almancy stuff).

Yes, but I risk difficulties with reviewers if I don't have an infobox. Also, there should be some common formatting in the R&H articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

LEAD

• Pretty good. I like how your leads are short and easy to digest (this is best). I think you finesse the plot summary thing in a way that does not feel like a tease, but accomplishes your objective (not many could manage that, but you work it perfect). Maybe just a little polishing, just since it is the lead.

• Tighten up first sentence. Cut written, just say "by". Also, it feels funny how you point out the genre of musical comedy, but can only link musical (as we lack a good article differentiating musical comedy from musicals overall). Also the sixth collaboration for the stage thing seemed wordy. could we just say MnJ is the sixth musical by RnH? Or sixth stage musical?

It's technicalities, they also did a movie musical, State Fair (1945 film) which was adapted for the stage in the 1990s, we need to exclude that. I could say "stage musical" but that is unnecessarily repeating the word "musical in that sentence. It's not a big deal either way, but there's no perfect way of doing this, I'm afraid.

You don't have to repeat musical within that sentence. You can just say, MnJ is the sixth stage musical by RnH (or seventh musical if you want to omit the distinction of film and theater).TCO (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Cut "a story". Also perhaps the play or the musical instead of the "the work".

"The musical" is again a repetition, and if I call it a play, it's going to get objected to as it has been in a prior FAC, that was why I put "the work". However, I've eliminated it from the third sentence to avoid a repetition.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Maybe break second sentence in two.

Well, I compromised with a colon?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Is it possible to make a more positive statement than "not a success". Was a failure? Was mediocre?

See the discussion on this in the FAC. I think there is enough interpretation about what is a failure to make greater specificity unwarranted.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

(Segue) there was something Billboard google books (just saw) about it earning back it's budget in 23.5 weeks. Sort of said in the "theater is not that bad of a business if that thing is making money" tone. Just in case you cared...TCO (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• The lack of awards seems noteworthy for article and lead, no? Could this be added into the sentence about the close?

• Cut another (since we don't really know the history per se, it give pause). Just say "after RnH's hit TKAI, R proposed..."

• Could we say why Hammerstein was not thrilled? It might also help prevent a confusion that he was unthrilled because of the stage-setting complications.

He thought it trivial. To that point, R&H shows tried "to say something", as I think Hammerstein once put it. The anti-racism message in South Pacific for example, the mature themes of life and death in Carousel which played so well to the end-of-war mood. This was intended to be just a laugh. He thought they could do better.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Could we say "required" instead of "would require"? Also perhaps expand the thought and comment on who did the design work, and that the mission was accomplished? Perhaps add a sentence, chop that long one, maybe and just make it a fourth para (you are allowed four and it is a pretty different thought than the Rodgers drive to have a cast play.)

• Last para feels vague where you talk about "problems" and "difficulties". Add a sentence in between the first and second that describes what was lacking (tensionless, or too confusing, or whatever, research it if needed...it's important content).

PLOT

• I'm actually fine with this in either location. If you did move it further back, would add a little more overview on the plot revolving around the men pursuing Jenny. If you keep it here, right after lead, not needed.

• Like the hatnote. Cut "additional information on"

• I guess "in and close to" is needed for accuracy. Feels clunky though. Could we say "at"?

I don't like "at" because of the bar scene. Also, one scene is set in the alley outside (gossip scene among the chorus kids).

• Cut either successful or long-running (redundant).

• Cut them both (describing how play within the play is doing commercially is not relevant).

It is necessary to establish that this the musical is in a mature state. They are not worried about it closing and them being out of jobs. I think it's relevant.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Cut "internal play or"

ACT 1

• First para should be cut into two to three paras. It's such an easy gimmick for technical text to make it less daunting to the reader (and given the flurry of character names and songs this is like technical text, is a lot of abstract info reader is required to keep in head).

• Does "curtain time" mean the opening curtain? Maybe start the description of the plot with an easier term (play start or opening curtain at least). I actually like the phrase, it just seems tough to start with it.

• professional services -> help (we already said they are both electricians and it is before curtain time).

• condense "who has been dating for 6 months" (maybe just girlfriend).

• cut "the" and "man".

• Instead of "these are doubts Jeanie shares", make it more active: Jeanie shares the doubts.

• New para startin with Jeanie leaves and Bob appears.

• "Bob tells Sidney that while he desires a romance with Jeanie, he has no intention of marrying her." Wordy. Can we move more towards something like, Bob tells Sidney that he likes dating Jeanie, but won't marry her.

• "makes it clear he is attracted to" -> says he likes

• cut "far"

• cut "part of"

• New para starting with Larry

• "is also attracted to" -> also likes

• I think you are supposed to use brackets for nested parens, but maybe you could just say (reprise of "That's the way it happens").

• "Stage manager Mac sees to the final preparations, and the overture to the internal show is played ("Overture to Me and Juliet"), and its curtain rises ("Marriage Type Love"): the main male character, "Me" (performed by Charlie, a singer), tells the audience both of the girl he wants to marry, Juliet (Lily, also a singer), and the girl he is determined not to, Carmen—he feels Carmen (the lead female dancing role) is better suited to his boss, Don Juan (the lead male dancer)." Dude...chop this fooker up. You have a colon, a dash, six parentheses, and names and songs of people coming out of every orifice. There is some good advice on the USG site on plain writing of regulations which advises "not being afraid of lots of periods". I just think when the content itself is hard to keep track of, that the sentence structure should be easier. You're asking the reader to keep track of a lot of parentheticals and appositives and such along with a lot of tactical details.

• Not sure if a comma is needed after the another day at phrase. (seems like it scans fine without, no biggie though).

• plans to -> decides to (more active and fits better in the context of the urging)

• "On learning this": I don't get the connection. I could see how on learning that Larry dug Jeannie, Mac would say that, but why wrt Jeannie auditioning? Is Mac worried that Larry will select Jeanie? Maybe just cut the "on learning this" connection?

Anything good which happens to the stage manager's girlfriend can be perceived as favoritism, and so could cause divisions backstage. Mac likes having a girlfriend, but is too good a stage manager to allow this to happen to him, solution is to not date within the show. Mac is training Larry in his ways.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• cut "which is about to close" (it's explanatory, but who cares in the context of this thing if she is doing it to keep employed or to advance herself). Just tightens things.

Apparently she has impressed "Me" (Charlie) enough that he brings her to the audition and she is satisfactory to both the director and choreographer, who had deadlocked on two prior candidates, one a good looker, one a great dancer. All of which would get us endlessly bogged down.

• cut "the show" (perhaps cut the whole Carmen incumbent parenthetical).

• "The unseen producer and choreographer give her the role" -> Betty wins the role (just trying to get rid of one more character for us to keep in head, this unseen dude with two jobs). Or maybe just say "the producer gives Betty the role" (if we want to make it clear it was not Mac doing the granting). But cut the multijob part and the unseen part (unneeded details).

• "professionally": it's probably a good word, but is there something more descriptive of his manner (stoic, grim, blankfaced) to put in contrast to Larry's laughter.

• " looks on with amusement" -> grins, laughs, smiles?

It says "Larry is amused by Mac's predicament."--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• cut "future" (it's implied by practicing already)

• New para starting with Jeanie. Also cut the sentence into two (with the shift from Jeannie to Larry as subjects).

• Just a thought, but maybe having scene headers would help here. That way you can have more para breaks, but still show a thought heirarchy.

• "and backs up the first understudy during Lily's summer vacation" Cut. Unneeded detail and also seems strange to say she is second understudy and then say backs up first understudy (I get it, but it's distracting).

• "and hoping to keep" -> keeping

• cut "fully"

• New para starting with Mac. (Good way to break thoughts. Helps us keep track of all these confusing romances.)

• Change semicolon to a period. It's a big change in perspective, probably better not to join the thoughts. Less transition, more change.

• New para starting with Bob has been fooled.

ACT 2

• change the curtain rises to "starts"

• the dash with an although looks funny. I would use a comma. Or if you really want to make a break, then put a period there and start the next sentence with on of those ballsy "buts" at the beginning of a sentence. But...probably a comma.  ;)

• "has noticed nothing amiss" -> has not noticed anything strange

"untoward"? or perhaps "unusual"?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Unusual. I'm trying to drive towards simpler, guttier languge.TCO (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• "As Act 2 of the internal show commences": Starts is better than commences. Also, I think you can cut "of the internal show" since we already clarified that the sentences preceding.

• This whole first para can stay together since there is some juicy action to hold it together. The play is better whenever Bob gets his thug on!

• "and promises dire action when they are found" -> " and says he will hurt them" or..."menacingly" or something. Just not dire action!

• unconscious -> out

• "complete their professional duties" -> continue the play

• "Mac recovers first" I don't think the order of when they come to is important and when you raise a detail like that makes the reader expect it to matter. Would just say they both come to or whatever.

• "goes in search of him" -> follows

No, Bob left by the door. Mac leaves by the window in an attempt to get backstage first.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• I would probably chop the Bob and Mac sentence into two little shorties. The action pulls us along.

• "As he does so, the producer calls to transfer Mac to another show, setting him free to resume his romance with Betty." How does that work? Is he aware of the call? Does he take it before he starts to go after Bob? I don't see how he can be roaming around after Bob and taking a call.

Bob walks out the door, destination and purpose uncertain. After a moment, Ruby and Mac, who are the only ones left in the office, start worrying Bob will go after Larry and Jeanie. He goes out the window which Bob broke, saying he can make it backstage before Bob can. As he self-defenestrates, the phone starts ringing. It's Mr. Harrison, the producer, calling for Mac. Ruby takes the call, finds out Mac is being transferred to "the new show" and tries to call Mac back, but it is too late. He finds out a few minutes later, hugs Betty onstage during a blackout and is caught onstage and hides behind dancers to make his way offstage.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Just change it to say, After he leaves, the producer calls Ruby to transfer Mac to another show, setting him free..blabla...TCO (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• New para start with Onstage.

• "I'll be here, I guess.": If this is a song should be in parens to be similar to rest of narrative. If a remark, then it's confusingly sounding like a song.

No, that's what he says. I kind of like Bob, and the fact that they did not fire him.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• This para is pretty good.