Talk:Show Boat/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Noleander (talk · contribs) 01:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I can do this GA review. Can the nominator please confirm they are still interested in working on this? --Noleander (talk) 01:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article was nominated for GA by User:PianoDan. Customarily, the nominating editor should work on the article a bit before nominating. I don't see many edits by PianoDan in the article's history. PianoDan: Can you work on the article for a few days, and then we can start the GA process afterwards? --Noleander (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that the a nominator had to have worked on the article. I nominated the article because it seemed to me to be an excellent choice for GA status, but not through any efforts of mine. PianoDan (talk) 02:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That said, if a reviewer decides that further changes would be needed to reach GA status, I am willing and consider myself qualified to make those changes. As it stands now, however, the article looks to me to be in excellent shape. PianoDan (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from reviewer[edit]

Cool, glad to hear you're available to work on the article. I'll be happy to do a GA review.

Can you start by making sure all non-trivial paragraphs have a footnote? For instance, the 1st two pagaraphs of "American revivals and 1936 film" section; or the paragraph that ends with "This was meant to illustrate how white performers "appropriated" the music and dancing styles of African Americans. Earlier productions of Show Boat, even the 1927 stage original and the 1936 film version, did not go this far in social commentary." Trivial paragraphs that just summarize the plot don't require footnotes. And a footnote is not required for every single sentence ... but each paragraph should end with a footnote, so readers can jump down to the References and see where to go to to get more information about that paragraph's topic.

Does each paragraph really need to END with a footnote, as long as there are appropriate footnotes in logical places in the paragraph? Often it appears that the best place for a footnote in a given paragraph is earlier. That said, I've gone through and added a bunch more.PianoDan (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no hard-and-fast rule. But putting the footnote in the middle of a paragr gives the impression that that source only justifies the preceding material; leaving the reader thinking that the following text (latter half of paragr) has no source at all. If the entire paragr comes from one source, the footnote should be at the end. If various parts of the paragr come from multiple sources, then multiple footnotes are best.

Second, the article is very skimpy on illustrations. Can you check to see if more are available?

Added two, one from each major film version. PianoDan (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Movie plot: The movie plot is mentioned in the following text: "Note: The 1951 MGM film completely changed the final scenes ...". The format of that text is not standard (italic; indented). It should be a dedicated subsection, with a title like "1951 movie plot" or similar. No italic; no indent.

Done - PianoDan (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Picture rationales: The 2 new pics are great! They are copyrighted, which means that special work has to be done: in the image file itself you must add a "fair use rationale" into each image, explaining why the image is critical to help readers understand this article. Those images already contain 1 rationale (each) for the article they were originally used it; but a separate rationale is required for each article the image is used in (WP has strict rules on this). You can start by duplicating the old/existing rationale: but you must tailor the new rationale for this article.

Um.. I uploaded the one from the 1936 film myself - it's only ever been used in this article. I'll add one for the MGM image soon.PianoDan (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done - PianoDan (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence needs clarification: "Note: There is no definitive version of the libretto of Show Boat, although the basic plot has always remained the same; minor revisions have been made by the creators, and subsequent producers and directors over the years." - Maybe there are dozens of librettos that have been used; but if one were to purchase the libretto today from the copyright owner, I daresay that there are only 2 or 3 librettos for sale. Maybe it is more accurate to say that "The libretto has been altered/tailored by nearly every director that has staged a production" or similar.

Done PianoDan (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slang: "...did not really use the entire score..." - Word "really" can be omitted.

Done PianoDan (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar: "... but its cast album broke ground..." - Word "but" is wrong: it is not contradicting the prior phrase.

Reworded PianoDan (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be precise: "...has been adapted for film several times,..." - May as well specify the quantity.\

Fixed PianoDan (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cite needed: "The soundtrack of the 1936 film version has appeared on a so-called "bootleg" CD label called Xeno." - May be true, but some readers may think it is a hoax or joke. Fine a cite or remove.

Cited - PianoDan (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cite needed: Entire paragraph "In subsequent productions, "niggers" has been changed to "colored folk," ..." contains critical historical information and readers need to know what source to go to to get more information.

Added - PianoDan (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify wording: "The 1993 Hal Prince revival, originating in Toronto, brought racial matters into focus. Throughout the production, African Americans constantly cleaned up the mess, moved the sets (even when hydraulics actually moved them), with their presence constantly commenting on the racial disparities." - Could you improve that wording? It took me a couple of reads to understand what is intended. Maybe something like "the production was staged in a way to force the audience to contemplate racial disparities: Af-Am actors performed most menial work on stage during the show, including ..."

Reworded PianoDan (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dead external Links: If you click on the blue "External links" link in the upper right corner of this page, you'll see four red ext links: those are defunct & need to be fixed.

Fixed PianoDan (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Section title: "Racial depictions controversy" -> should probably be "Racial issues". The word "controversy" is a bit POV/non-neutral; and the "depictions" is unnecessary.

Done PianoDan (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's about all I can find. If you fix the few remaining items, I think we are good-to-go for GA status. Nice work!

OK, I think that's everything. Back to studying for finals now! PianoDan (talk) 18:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]