This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pedophilia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Thailand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Thailand-related articles on Wikipedia. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systematic bias group aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Thailand-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
At first glance, this looks very solid, and I don't anticipate many issues with this getting to GA. Thanks for writing about this important play. I'll add some more detailed comments as I go.
I'll do some minor copyediting as I proceed through the article; feel free to revert anything you disagree with, and please doublecheck me to make sure I don't inadvertently introduce any errors.
After starting to write the play, Kooman read about the Ranong human-trafficking incident, in which 121 people were trafficked from Burma to Thailand and left in a locked water tank, which was then abandoned by its drivers and was only discovered after 54 of the people had died from suffocation or hyperthermia." This sentence is very difficult to read due to its length and the number of footnotes that interrupt it. Would it be possible to break it into two sentences, and put the footnotes at the end rather than after each word?
"When the truck was discovered in April 2008, it contained men, women and children, all of whom had been smuggled across the Malaysia–Thailand border." -- another sentence disrupted by over-footnoting. You might consider using footnotes in the style displayed at Christian Science (see refs 26 or 159); this would allow you to cite 4-5 sources per sentence without interfering with the reader's comprehension of the sentence.
Scripts at Work is introduced early in a paragraph and linked and explained at its end; this should probably get context on the first mention instead of the second.
More later... -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for taking on this GAN. I have switched the "Scripts At Work" link to the first mention. I've also looked over your copyediting and it all looks great, except for the last edit which I altered. Please let me know if the restructuring meets with your approval. With respect to the two reference-heavy sentences you mention above, my concern with moving the references to the end of the sentence is that each reference only sources the portion of the sentence that precedes it; to move all the references to the end of the sentence prevents the reader from knowing which reference sources which portion of the information. Still, if such is not against Wikipedia guidelines or policy and is deemed preferable to mid-sentence references, I am content to have the references moved to the ends of the sentences. Neelix (talk) 05:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it's better that way. You can see WP:CITEBUNDLE for a few strategies on how to do this. On an unrelated note, I won't have Internet access for the next 3-7 days. I apologize for the delay this will cause in the review. I'm excited about this one and looking forward to finishing it off when I get back. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I have bundled the citations for both sentences per the guidline you mention. Neelix (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm back on; sorry again for the delay. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I'm through to the end and this seems quite good to me. My main concerns at this point are with a few opinions that should probably be attributed in-text, and a few other points regarding the critical response. Let me know your thoughts, and thanks again for your work on this.
"Kooman's changes strengthened the emotional pull of the play" -- this opinion should be attributed in-text rather than written in Wikipedia's voice ("According to reviewer Lana Michelin...")
"and the play ends in catastrophe" -- What is the catastrophe? The play's ending should be described more concretely, given the level of detail up until now.
"Number 18 is a nuanced character, better-developed than the stock damsel in distress character" -- this opinion should be attributed in-text
"The drama has a fast pace and, while She Has a Name is an emotional play, there are lighter moments where audience members can laugh, maintaining the audience's engagement with the story so they do not become numb to the play's emotional pulls." -- more opinions/interpretation to attribute in-text ("Critic X described it as fast-paced...")
"The play's premiere and initial run were more critically acclaimed than expected." -- does this have a source? The acclaim is noted, but not the original expectations. (Also, expected by who?)
"The writing of the play in general has been labelled "astounding"" -- is this really the general opinion? Reading the reviews in more detail again suggests to me that this is rather misleading. I'm also not sure that a psuedonymous blog review at "Bloody Underrated" is worth including here; if it is to be included, though, I'd suggest at least making the source of this opinion clear in-text and not using it to lead off the section.
This isn't necessary for GA review, but I'd strongly suggest bundling more of the sentences that have multiple footnotes; the bright blue footnotes repeatedly interrupting the text makes the article unnecessarily difficult to read. (Or at least for a reader with my level of concentration.) Similarly, I'm not sure the plot and character sections need to be so heavily referenced; plot sections are often not referenced at all in play articles. Again, though, you don't have worry about this for GA; just making suggestions for the future that might help with another run at FA status. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I have attributed the opinion statements you mention above in-text. Unfortunately, I can't be more specific about the play's concluding catastrophe because its specifics are not mentioned in any secondary sources. The play has not been published, so it is not possible to cite the play itself. That is also why there are so many references in the plot and character sections; we can't just source it all to the play, as we would do on most articles about plays. The statement "The play's premiere and intial run were more critically acclaimed than expected" is referenced by the source that follows it: the 100 Huntley Street citation. That source refers to the overwhelmingly positive reactions to the premiere and initial run as an "unexpected response" that led to the planning of the 2012 tour; the source does not mention whose expections are being referenced. If you find the statement too vague, I can shorten it to "The play's premiere and initial run were critically acclaimed." I'm not sure where you see the reference to the writing in the play as "astounding"; the "Bloody Underrated" source was removed from the article a long time ago. I will be sure to bundle more citations in preparation for another Featured Article candidacy; thank you for the recommendation. Neelix (talk) 20:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for doing those.
For the plot, have you seen this play so that you could simply summarize it yourself? It's really not necessary to cite anything in the plot summary but direct quotations, and in fact the standard approach would be not to. (See, to pick three featured fiction articles at random, Le Père Goriot, The General in His Labyrinth, or The Red Badge of Courage). If you haven't seen the play, we can try to figure out another approach.
For the "more critically acclaimed than expected", that'll be fine; I didn't realize it was in that citation, but that's my mistake.
As far as the "astounded" goes, I apologize for the second mistake; I had the main article and the "critical response" subarticle open at the same time and must have confused them. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I've started the final checklist (below). I think this one's just about there. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I've removed all of the citations from the "Plot summary" section along with most of the citations from the "Characters" section; I left the ones that I thought needed to remain, but I can remove them as well if you disagree. I have also added two sentences from the "Themes" section to the lead. Fortunately, I have seen the play, so I have explained how the plot concludes at the end of the "Plot summary" section. You have a question mark next to 1a; is there something that requires doing on that front? Neelix (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Nope, just hadn't remembered to update that yet to reflect that I'd done the spotchecks. This is all set and a big pass! -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I propose selectively merging 2012 tour of She Has a Name and Critical response to She Has a Name back into this article. I understand that a split was initially found desirable because the volume of material was overwhelming the main article, but in my opinion, that volume of material is itself the result of an excessive and unencyclopedic amount of detail. WP:NOTNEWS is one relevant idea: here we aim to preserve information that is important in the long-term, but both of the sub-articles include a great deal of material on the day-to-day events of the tour, pull quotes from the local paper of every city where it was performed, etc. that can be condensed or removed. Compare this article on a 1970 production of A Midsummer Night's Dream: it's a production of one of the major plays of the English canon, and the production itself revolutionized productions of Shakespeare and has been discussed in literature for decades. This simply isn't the case for She Has a Name: it's clearly notable enough for an article, but it's, at best, too early and too local to demonstrate the sort of historical importance that might justify a bunch of sub-articles. This level of coverage might be suitable for the play's website, but on Wikipedia, it has the effect of functioning as promotion for the play. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Support merge. (FWIW, I'm the GA reviewer for the main article here.) I realize this faces an uphill struggle, with two of the parts having reached GA and one FA, but this content seems unnecessarily diffuse to me. For having three articles devoted to the topic, I would expect hundreds of articles in scholarly journals and major media on the subject, and that doesn't seem to be the case here. As Roscelese points out, instead, there's a heavy reliance on local newspapers to flesh this out. By merging and narrowing the focus to higher-quality sources, I think the resulting article would improve substantially. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Oppose merge. These articles are not padded with fluff; they present a significant amount of valid, encyclopedic information. To merge them and condense them would be to either have a very lengthy article or to remove worthwhile content. The information found in these articles has already been pared down significantly. A play does not need to be as notable as A Midsummer Night's Dream to justify subarticles. Consider that She Has a Name has only two subarticles while A Midsummer Night's Dream has dozens of subarticles. A merger is not justified. Neelix (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Oppose merge, seems like a merge for merge's sake. The resultant article, even if merged selectively, would be very large, and that doesn't serve our community well, particularly in the era of mobile browsing. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I disagree that it'd be a merge for a merge's sake; as I stated above, there's a really unencyclopedic level of day-to-day and local detail here that has a promotional effect. Is there anything I can do to assuage your concerns about length? For instance, draft a merged version in talk space. I'm not concerned about length since enormous amounts of unsuitable material will have to be removed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
What material are you seeing as unencyclopedic? The contents of the three articles seem quite encyclopedic to me. If you would like to see a draft of a merged version, just look at the pre-split version of the main article. Neelix (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Let's see...the complete tour itinerary? The reviews from blogs? Sentimental audience response? Shall I go on? This is a promotional brochure, not an encyclopedia article, the nod at critical dislike notwithstanding. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
The complete tour itinerary has already been removed; if you are referring to the "Performances" and "Talkback panels and fundraising" sections, it is quite encyclopedic to include information about the people and institutions associated with the tour. Where are there reviews from blogs? I don't see any in the sources used. It sounds as though you are calling for a deletion of 2012 tour of She Has a Name and Critical response to She Has a Name, not a merger. Neelix (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Oppose merge, per Neelix and The Rambling Man. Also, I'm not sure about the wisdom of merging a recent TFA. BOZ (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Comment - when I first came to the "Critical response..." article as GA reviewer, I was initially skeptical also about whether a full article was appropriate. However, having reviewed that article I would now find it very difficult to argue that the content is meaningless or the article not deep enough to stand alone. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 16:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Several categories were recently removed from this article. I believe that they should be readded. Here is my reasoning:
Category:2009 plays - The first version of She Has a Name was written in 2009; a reading of the play was given in 2009, and it was also given an award in 2009.
Category:Child sexual abuse in literature - She Has a Name is a piece of literature about child sexual abuse.
Category:Plays set in Canada - While most of She Has a Name is set in Thailand, there are several scenes set in Canada depicting Ali.
Category:Thriller plays - Stephen Waldschmidt, the director of the performances of She Has a Name, called the play a thriller.
Category:Tragedy - This play is a tragedy, in the same way that Shakespearean tragedies are tragedies.
Category:Works about rape - The opening scene of the play is a rape scene, and rape is a common theme in the play.
Category:Prostitution in Canada - Discussions of She Has a Name have been consistently intermingled with discussions of prostitution in Canada; Kooman, the playwright, has spoken of the play in these terms, and the talkback discussions during the tour dealt prominently with the subject.
For these reasons, I recommend that the categories above be readded to the article. Neelix (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
These are either redundant or unsuitable.
If we included a separate year category for every time the play had a minor revision, there would be no point to the year categories at all. We already put it in 2010 and 2011 to cover both the one-act version (first given a reading in 2010) and the full version (premiered 2011). The number of times that Kooman reworked it before it ever saw the light of day aren't particularly relevant category-wise.
Redundant to "Works about child prostitution."
A small enough part of the play that it's not appropriate.
We need more than a self-promotional comment or a passing mention in a review in order to give the play a genre - it's not the end of the world if not all plays are categorized according to genre, and we don't have the body of sourcing necessary to call it either a thriller or a tragedy. (FWIW, it doesn't resemble a Shakespearean tragedy, contrary to your comment.)
I'm inclined to think this is also redundant to existing content-related categories. Can you make a case that rape is a theme of the play over and above its already being a play about human trafficking and forced prostitution?
I don't see that that's supported by the article text - in fact, one review even criticized the play's presentation of human trafficking as a non-Canadian problem.
I'd like you to reexamine your motivations for wanting to include these categories. It seems like you're just trying to increase the visibility of the article by putting it in as many categories as possible, however unsuitable, but remember, Wikipedia is not intended as a vehicle for promotion. The only categories that should be used are those which are appropriate for the article based on its content and on our categorization system. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I have no motives for promotion or visibility. I am here as an encyclopedian; I therefore wish the article and the category lists to be complete. I am not questioning your motives in getting the categories removed; I recommend that we focus our discussion on article content rather than on editors. Please see my responses below:
"Category:2009 plays" states that the category is for "plays written or first performed in 2009." The play was both written and first performed (via a reading) in 2009. I think that it would strike readers as very odd if the earliest year category for the article was 2010 while the article text itself clearly states that the play received an award the year before.
"Category:Child sexual abuse in literature" and "Category:Works about child prostitution" are not redundant; not all works are works of literature, and not all sexual abuse is prostitution, therefore neither category is a subcategory of the other.
OK, I can accept that reasoning for removing "Category:Plays set in Canada".
The Tragedy article states that a tragedy is "a form of drama based on human suffering that invokes in its audience an accompanying catharsis or pleasure in the viewing." That statement describes She Has a Name very well, and its application to the play is bolstered by most of the sources in the article.
If you do not feel that Waldschmidt's quotation is sufficient, than I am satisfied for "Category:Thriller plays" to be removed.
The most prominent rape scenes in the play do not fall within the scope of forced prostitution; no one gets paid as a result of the rape of number 18 at the beginning of the play, nor does anyone get paid for the final implied rape scene. Even if all of the rape in the play was forced-prostitution and human-trafficking-related, not all rape in general is forced prostitution, not all rape is human-trafficking-related, and not all human trafficking involves rape. "Category:Works about rape" is not made redundant by "Category:Forced prostitution" or "Category:Works about human trafficking".
The "2012 tour" section states that discussions of the play as it toured focused on the subject of human trafficking in Canada.
I would be grateful for your responses; I hope that we will be able to come to a mutually satisfactory decision about these categories. Neelix (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
OK, how would you feel about removing one of the other year categories? Perhaps adding back 2009 and removing 2011? I may be misremembering which event related to the play's creation the category date relates to - I'm just sure that so many years are not appropriate (even two may be too much).
I'm not sure you understand how categories work - not all child sexual abuse is prostitution, but child prostitution is child abuse, so this category is already in the abuse category. The article is where it needs to be for people to find it; the encyclopedia does not benefit by adding it to redundant categories.
Like I said, we don't have the necessary body of sourcing. If the play is worthy of scholarly attention, we'll see in what genre scholars decide it belongs. It's not your job nor mine to analyze the play and decide (and if you asked me, I'd strongly disagree; despite the modern corruption of the term, not everything that's sad is a tragedy). Wait for reliable sources to make the call.
Obviously not all rape is forced prostitution or human trafficking related, but I'm not sure why this is supposed to be an argument, since the rape in this play is. ???
I see passing mentions of it in some of the show announcements, but it's still not the case that an association at two or three removes requires a category. To quote from WP:OCAT: "Not every verifiable fact (or the intersection of two or more such facts) in an article requires an associated category." To bring in the Midsummer analogy again, we don't categorize the play under nuns/priestesses, donkeys, or Roman mythology, even though these are all things that actually appear in and are relevant to the play, unlike prostitution in Canada vis-à-vis She Has a Name.
Category:2009 plays - Why is it a problem to have three year-specific categories? I see nothing in the guidelines suggesting that this is a problem.
Category:Child sexual abuse in literature - If two categories are not subcategories of each other, then they are not redundant. It does not matter that Category A and Category B are both subcategories of Category C; if Category A is not a subcategory of Category B and Category B is not a subcategory of Category A, the two categories are not redundant and both (if they are both applicable to the article) should be included.
Category:Tragedy - I do not see why a source needs to specifically use the word "tragedy" to provide enough evidence to demonstrate that the play falls into that category. The two elements of tragedy, as defined on the Tragedy article, are depiction of human suffering and invocation of catharsis; both of these elements are well-sourced throughout the article. This is not primary research.
Category:Works about rape - Please see "Category:Child sexual abuse in literature" above.
Category:Prostitution in Canada - This is a Canadian play about prostitution. Surely, that fact alone is enough to demonstrate that this article belongs in this category. Neelix (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Because categories are intended to reflect facts in the article and help users navigate, not to publicize the article?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you seem to be saying is that it's a problem if this play isn't in a category about a broader topic but that specifies literature. I disagree that it's a problem. It's already in a more specific category with regard to topic, and adding the broader topic would be redundant. The reason "Works about child prostitution" isn't split into literature, TV, etc. is presumably because that would be overcategorization.
If you don't see why things need to be supported by sources, you don't understand how WP works.
You're not attempting to answer my point. I'll copy and paste it. Obviously not all rape is forced prostitution or human trafficking related, but I'm not sure why this is supposed to be an argument, since the rape in this play is. ???
I'm not sure that's how it works - "prostitution in Canada" would seem to be about, well, prostitution in Canada - but you could ask around.
All three of the year categories reflect facts in the article and help users navigate. What is the problem here?
No, you've misunderstood me. I don't want the article to be in any broader topics that the article is already more specifically in; the "but that specifies literature" part makes the category more specific, and avoids the redundancy.
This fact is suppported by sources, as I have stated above. That a particular word does not appear in the sources does not mean that that word cannot appear in the article.
I am answering your point; the issue for "Category:Works about rape" is the same as for "Category:Child sexual abuse in literature"; neither of these categories is a parent category or subcategory of either of the other categories, therefore neither of them is redundant.
It would appear that we disagree on the limitations of this category. Perhaps we should request a third opinion on the subject. Neelix (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I think a third opinion would be best, as you clearly stopped listening several comments ago. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I believe that I have thoroughly considered all of your comments, but I am glad that you are in agreement that seeking a third opinion would be wise. I will post a notice of this discussion on the WikiProject Categories talk page. Neelix (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Hi, I've read through the above discussion, here are my thoughts:
Year categories - the intent of these categories is, I believe, to highlight when a work was released to the world. The fact that it was written in 2009, or even "read" in 2009 and 2010, does not suffice; I don't think it's helpful to have it scattered in multiple categories. Rather, we should keep it as Category:2011 plays, as that was the year it actually premiered with actors, live audience, and a full performance.
re: Category:Child sexual abuse in literature - my quick reading suggests that the major theme is child prostitution and trafficking, and that is certainly a subset of Child sexual abuse. the "works about child prostitution" is already a sub-set of the broader "Works about child abuse", so we don't need a second category to highlight this. The child prostitution category is the most specific, and works the best here.
re: Category:Tragedies, I agree, we need to wait for sources to call this tragedy - and not just call it one, but for it to be WP:DEFINING about this work - e.g. I'd like to see people say "Tragic plays, from Shakespeare like Hamlet or modern versions like She Has a Name, are more and more popular" - or "She Has a Name is a recent tragedy written by XXX and currently on tour in YYY"
re: Category:Works about rape, again, I haven't seen the play, but it seems that rape is not a major theme - rather the rape is incidental to the major parts of the story, which is child prostitution. If someone were compiling a list of works about rape, would this be on it? OTOH, in a way, child prostitution itself is a form of statutory rape, so perhaps Category:Works about child prostitution should be put as a subcat of Category:Works about rape? This may not work, however, since statutory rape is differently defined by different countries
Thank you for providing us with a third opinion. I have removed "Category:2010 plays" as you have recommended. I am content to leave "Category:Tragedy", "Category:Works about rape", and "Category:Prostitution in Canada" out of the article. I have replaced "Category:Child sexual abuse in literature" and "Category:Works about child prostitution" with "Category:Child prostitution in literature". I hope this change meets with everyone's approval. Neelix (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)