Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pipe Dream (musical)/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain 01:37, 23 February 2011 [1].

Pipe Dream (musical)

Featured article candidates/Pipe Dream (musical)/archive1

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to add to the Pipe Dream site and it has been reverted can you tell me why? the

Rodgers & Hammerstein Partnership is my evocation and had been for many years I even wrote a musical critique of their partnership for composer Richard Rodgers late daughter Mary, and attempted to add to it after I read Barbara Hammerstein's autobiography she was married to Oscar Hammerstein's son James Hammerstein. Thanks Leilaanitavalerielesley (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. Pipe Dream is a musical derived from a rather raunchy novel by Steinbeck, and even though Rodgers & Hammerstein toned it down considerably, it is probably the most sexualized plot of their joint works. There is just no getting around the fact that the female lead is a prostitute, and her madam is a major character. Let me put it this way: this is not The Sound of Music.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review. I'll also say that it needs copy-editing, as there are quite a few typos and grammar glitches.

Earwig's and Coren's tools found no copyvio. I wasn't able to access most of the sources, but the one available showed a bit of overly close paraphrasing: "A former social worker, Fauna teaches the girls to how to set a table properly, hopeful they will marry" vs "a former social worker who teaches the girls how to set a table properly in the hope that they will marry"; "she had never represented herself as much of an actress" vs "she never claimed to be much of an actress".
Several of the quotes don't quite match the source - for example, "scene after scene was emasculated" vs "scene after scene became emasculated". They're minor transcription errors, but there's quite a few of them
There are a couple of identical refs that should be combined
Block is in References but not Bibliography; Secrest is in Bibliography but not in References
Be consistent in where you put the page number in books cited only in References
OCLCs are misformatted

Other than that, sources appear reliable and appropriately used. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work these through. With regard to the paraphrasing, I should say this: Both were circumstances in which I feel justified closely tracking the source. With respect to the first one, to be blunt, there was no good and effective way of phrasing it that did not come close to the source. If anyone thinks of one, feel free to change it or let me know. WIth respect to Traubel and how she represented herself as not much of an actress, the source did not give me the quote, rather it gave me a paraphrase. If you paraphrase a paraphrase, it's like playing telephone, you take the risk of winding up further from what Traubel actually said than the source. Then when someone relies on my work ... well, you get the picture. If there are any others you feel are too close I would be grateful if you would bring them to my attention. I am very thankful for the early and thorough (!) source review. I do not plan right now to change the two paraphrases, but I am very open to suggestions. Thanks again.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to your question about transcription on my talk: besides the emasculation already mentioned, I noticed a couple of added serial commas, "I cannot believe nor take Pipe Dream seriously" vs "I can neither believe nor take Pipe Dream seriously", and "Perhaps Rodgers and Hammerstein are too gentlemanly to be dealing with Steinbeck's sleazly and raffish denizens" vs "perhaps Hammerstein and Rodgers are too gentlemanly to be dealing with Steinbeck's sleazy and raffish denizens". There may be others in the sources I didn't check. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's my mistake and the only way I see solve it is for me to go through all the quotes in the article and doublecheck them. Will report back when completed.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which I've now done. Obviously, self-checking carries the possibility of error, but I've checked every quote against the original and caught a couple of thing. I seem to have this problem with commas. Sigh.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've also gone through and corrected the other matters which Nikkimaria found as a result of the review she was most kind to do. I am very gratified for a review of the nuts and bolts of the article. It makes for a top-level article, which I am given to understand is the real point here, not getting little bronze stars.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing issues have been resolved to my satisfaction. Good luck! Nikkimaria (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. And feeling a bit proactive, I've gone ahead and checked every quote in my FAC-in-waiting, Me and Juliet.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I made my main comments is a lengthy peer review, linked here. Most of my concerns were fixed there. I have a few remaining quibbles and suggestions:-

Last sentence in lead should be more time-specific.
"The action of the play is contemporary to its composition..." seems an avoidably obscure way of telling us that the story is set in the mid-1950s
I'm not sure much can be done, but on reading "owned by Joe the Mexican ("A Lopsided Bus")" I momentarily took the words in parenthases to refer to Joe - some strange nickname, perhaps. I tried switching the sentence around, but nothing really works - the title of the song is the bummer. Does it have to be in?
Per the peer review, I am still bothered by the "is transformed" bit, which as worded sounds as though magical forces were at work. I don't think this is the case, it's just a costume change, surely?
"...and she throws herself into his arm." Cruel and funny, a laugh-out-loud line, but barely encyclopedic, I think!
I'm still troubled by "had long not permitted" but if this is common American English phrasing, well OK
"...left the show when her contract expired a few weeks before it closed in June 1956..." The "it" refers to the show, not the contract, so this needs rephrasing. Perhaps "left when her contract expired a few weeks before the show closed in June 1956..."
Who issued the CD? I can see that the original album came from RCA Victor. Did the album contain all the music?

Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's in a quote, but "Brunhilde" should be "Brünnhilde" (I know this opera stuff).

I remind you of the origin of my name ...--Wehwalt (talk) 02:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine addition to the R & H collection. Brianboulton (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will play with the language. As Brunhilde is a redirect, I just left it alone, presumably it is an acceptable spelling and it all goes to Brynhild anyway. I will work on the others. Joe could use a nickname: It is never mentioned in the play, but in the book is name is Joseph and Mary Rivas. That's one person there. Thanks for reviewing and for supporting.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re "Brunhilde", the reference is very specifically to Wagner's Brünnhilde rather than to the general mythical Valkyrie sometimes spelt Brynhild. I have never seen the Brunhilde spelling; I'd [sic] it. I don't think I made my point about Joe clear. I was suggesting that the parenthetical ("A Lopsided Bus") reads as though it's describing Joe, rather than providing the title of a song. Brianboulton (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough. I haven't gotten around to your changes yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All done, I think, other than the last sentence in the lede. Mordden makes the most of it, and his book is 1990, but others mention it as late as 2002, after which there haven't been many R&H books. In other words, it's hard to say if they are still hoping for it. My guess is no, but I don't want to guess.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~. Support. Overall this is an excellent article and it will make an excellent addition to wikipedia's featured articles. I have a few complaints though:

There is no mention of music director Salvatore Dell'Isola who was nominated for a Tony Award for Best Conductor and Musical Director for Pipe Dream.

There is, and was. It's in the "Writing and casting" section. The Tony nomination is mentioned at the bottom, with the other awards and nominations.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to Andrews in this interview (and in other sources like her autobiography) she auditioned for Pipe Dream before being offered My Fair Lady, and Rodgers advised her to do the Lerner and Loewe show if she got the part over doing Pipe Dream. Your phrasing seems to indicate they were actively seeking Andrews after she had already gotten that part which is not true.
I do not like the lack of information on the "rare" productions outside of the Broadway run. Given how rare they are, there should be some press on those performances which would provide good source material. I know there was a 1981 production that toured Ventura County, California for example. After that I don't think it was performed at all until 1995 when it was presented in a concert version by 42nd Street Moon. I believe their 2002 production was also not staged, which this article should make clear. Other than that, I am not aware of any professional productions of the show.

I've added the LA Times review.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The potential Muppets project dates back to at least 1988 and your source dates from 1992, almost 20 years ago now. Can this really be considered still a possible project? Has the Hammerstein organization continued to pursue this? A lot has happened since, including the death of Jim Henson and the Disney takeover of The Muppets. This is most likely a long forgotten and abandoned project. Given that the project seems to have never materialized in over two decades, I'd say it is not even worth mentioning.

I have switched it to the past tense, in that the last source I can offer that even alludes to it is 2002, but I would say it is worth including for the brief mention. There isn't oodles to say about Pipe Dream, and the effort to market the play before they gave up and started cannibalizing it for the songs is worthwhile to mention. Were this Oklahoma! (hm, I wonder who would play Jud, I imagine Big Bird as Aunt Eller) of course there would be no point.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding that the music on the Broadway cast recording had a number of alterations to it, and it has some substantial differences from the music that was heard in the theatre. Also, I believe Traubel's music when through several re-writes. Here is an interesting article Overall, I think the commentary on the score in this article is a little sparse and could benefit with some further details in an additional paragraph. Likewise, some more details about the recording could be added.

Excellent. A January 2011 article yet! I had signed up for their mailing list but I guess this was posted before I did. I was aware that Traubel had vocal problems with the score, that were adjusted (I'm sure the article is speaking of "Sweet Thursday". This fleshes it out to the point where I can use it. Leave it to the R&H people, with archive accesss sigh.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's it. Sources look great and the prose reads well. This is an excellent article!4meter4 (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on these. Regarding the Julie Andrews story, as I said, there are varying stories. It is one of those things which are a bit of theatre legend.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any major cuts in the cast album, as I told Brian. Hischak is very good about mentioning such things (he does for Allegro for example) and he doesn't mention any significant cuts. The Amazon.com song listing looks more or less complete.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except where commented on above to the contrary, I've made changes as requested. Thanks for the knowledgeable review.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, and thank you for the excellent additions/changes. I have added my support above. It will be interesting to see what more is done with Pipe Dream after the restored score/book is published next year. I'm guessing possibly an Encores! production is in store with maybe Kristin Chenoweth as Fauna. There's also likely to be more things written about the show and maybe a new recording. If so, you'll have some more interesting things to write about in future. :-)4meter4 (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TCO Support. Very nice work. Benefits from your general understanding of the composers. Writing is sophisticated but accessible. Very smooth and economical. Nice narrative structure and quotes. (You already got rid of that one head scratcher on the setting thing...didn't even realize it meant 50s.)

I have read Sweet Thursday, but did not know of the play. Think the discussion of the novel versus the play was helpful for the reader and right way to handle things in article. Sounds like reading the book and maybe your article are the way to go. I guess listening to the songs maybe. But skip the play!

Have some minor suggestions for style. All kind of feel, rather than grammar issues. I reviewed for prose and logic.

Moving details to talk page per reviewer request. FYI. Checked prose and logic. Did not look at sources.TCO (talk) 02:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review? --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look.TCO (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TCO image review: I'm not FN. Just another bloke who uploads images, so take as a peer.

1. Size, composition, illustrative value were good. Thought author did a good job with the captions for the album cover and the Rickets lab to be clear on what they were, but also make them relevant to the article. Kudos.

2. Fair use on the album cover is well justified.

3. I wish we could get the Sweet Thursday cover in here, given all the discussion of that book...think it would not really be stealing or actionable. But I understand that it would not fly with current WP policy, so I'm NOT pushing for it.

4. I traced the Rodgers and Hammersteing photos permission back. They are part of a bulk donation with a bunch of warnings, but the source photo is part of the subset that is PD, so we are clear there. Interestingly the two images are cuts of a common image with Irving Berlin. I think use of two cutsis probably better though, for this article.TCO (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5. The street scene of Rickets lab was fine permission wise.

6. ~~I'm unclear on the Steinbeck permission.~~ Not "for sure" it's non-legit. Just had a question. See here: [2]

7. Quick Commons search on "Pipe Dream" did not find anything missing.

8. ~~Advise the author to do a few, quick searches for free images~~ to see if any can be added. Not some in depth library or database stuff, but a search of Google and then Flickr, using "advanced search" to restrict to free images (commercial use and derivative allowed). Try a few terms like "Pipe Dream", "John Steinbeck", "Richard Rodgers", and "Oscar Hammerstein" and just see if there are any good adds,. (Not trying to make this some huge research project, but this is FA, not GA. There's not a lot of content on this work, so a little quick internet surfing, could be worth the browser window time.) And if this was all done already, just let me know. If not, I can help, if a newbie is useful.

8.a. FYI: restricted Google image search for "John Steinbeck". There might be something in there. Would stay away from the poster picture as we don't know the underlying copyright. There is a Steinbeck USG photo (not as pretty as yours, but permission clear and could be cropped). Also there is a pretty statue of him looking out on Cannery Row. (We have to check the FoP situation, but it is on a USG site and has a high res available.)

TCO (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. For now, I think we leave the Steinbeck image unless it turns up something. Unfortunately, the John Steinbeck stamp was issued in 1979, a year after the USPS started copyrighting stamps, so we would be out of luck there. Please do not take the lack of images to mean that I haven't looked! Both myself and those I have worked with on the prior R&H articles have looked. It is very difficult to find free images of private persons whose fame is post 1923. If I recall correctly, the full image you speak of was from auditions for Annie Get Your Gun. Since Berlin had not contact with Pipe Dream (fortunately for him!), the full image would not work well, and the horizontal nature of that image would squeeze the portraits down in size. For Allegro I bought that program, but have not been able to find an item of Pipe Dream memorabilia at a reasonable price. Not that they are particularly valuable, but the shop overprices everything (on eBay btw). Regarding the statue, please remember that in the US, statues are artwork and there is no freedom of panorama. Thank you for doing an image review, btw, we have too few people doing that.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steinbeck image had an AFD, that it survived. [3] TCO (talk) 08:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that memory tickles me, the US Mint did issue a Steinbeck bullion half-ounce piece in the early 80s as part of the American Arts series, when the Mint was initially trying to compete with the Krugerrand. RHM22 is working on that article, I know he was having trouble finding images. Still I will tell him that if he can find a Steinbeck image, that would be, like Suzy, a good thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(for clarity) am satisfied with the images.TCO (talk) 02:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. 1 external redirect which may lead to link rot; see it with the tool in the upper right of this page. --Pres N 00:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That should be fixed now.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.