Talk:Lucky Guy (play)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 10:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I will review.

General

* No dablinks

• Stable -

* No images. Not part of WP:WIAGA but an image of the Broadhurst Theatre could be added in the appropriate context.

• • Added Broadhurst.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Added Vance, Ephron and Hanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Lead

• Per WP:MOSLEAD, an article of this size probably wants two paragraphs. The second paragraph can probably be the critical reception and awards
  • Expanded.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• It's not obvious from reading the lead alone that this was Ephron's final work because its posthumous. I appreciate you can easily work this out from reading her article, but for GAs you shouldn't need to do this.
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Background and composition

• I think this needs expansion, and more insight into the writing process. An article that says "The play is the final and posthumous work of Ephron, who died the year before its production" isn't telling the reader anything more than what they can infer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I have expanded this section as much as I could. However, unlike most works, the writer was not around to tell her story at the time when the public would be asking about it. I.e, once they could see that it was a likely and eventual Tony-nominee, she was already dead. Her writing process for this work is not likely extensively logged in the public domain.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Plot

* "Mike McAlary" should just read "McAlary" per WP:LASTNAME

• • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• "at aged 41"" - stray quotation mark
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• "including the tainted Tylenol case" - why was this case "tainted"? I think this paragraph just needs to explain why these points of McAlary's career are important, so the reader understands

* Near-fatal 1993 car crash is unsourced

• • reffed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

* "The second act of the play" - if it is, the first act probably wants to be explicitly mentioned too.

• • done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• The article says the act focuses on the Jane Doe rape case, but the source given ([1]) doesn't seem to mention this

• I think this section still needs improvement. The paragraph now starts "Mike McAlary, from 1985 to 1993, bounds from one New York City newsroom to another". As well as duplicating the WP:LASTNAME problem (albeit now in a different place), the text makes him sound like Superman. I think you just need to tone the language down a bit and explain things in a more neutral and factual manner. The section is now tagged as requiring expansion, and justifiably so. Have a look at She Has a Name, which is probably the closest GA I can find to this subject, for some ideas on what you can include. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Themes

The quotations here are the opinions of the individual reviewers and should be attributed at such.

• Done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C /

WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thinking of merging with critical review.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, at the moment it's a single paragraph section, which is discouraged. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• I have added a second paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Production history

• This section is quite short, and could probably be expanded. When did pre-production start? Do we know why the Broadhurst Theatre was chosen as the venue? Do we know why Tom Hanks specifically chose this play as his broadway debut? Most importantly, do we have any background into Ephron's writing of the play, and how it developed into production after her death. How much of it, if any, was she involved in?
  • Can't find the Hanks info.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

* "Directed by George C. Wolfe, Tom Hanks starred as McAlary." sounds a bit confusing. Suggest "It was directed by George C. Wolfe, with Tom Hanks starring McAlary"

• • Done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Critical review

• I'm not sure this section needs to be quite so long. Give a general summary of the critical reception, and include the most pertinent comments on all sides of opinion.

Awards and nominations

The individual Tony awards need to be cited (just procedural this one as the LA Times article has got them all)

• Awards cited.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

References

* BroadwayWorld.com is a redlink

• • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

External links

* "official website" should be in caps

• • Cap O done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Review sheet

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I think it's mainly expanding on existing content that is the issue here. Looks all solvable within a week, so I'm putting this on hold for now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• I have expanded the article a bit. I am at a loss on how to fill out the plot any further. I am also not so sure I want to chop the critical review section. This just might not make it over the hump. If it will make a difference I would take a closer look at the critical review, but given my inability to find a good source on the plot I am not sure what I can do.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll tell you what my gut feeling is, which is that there are good sources on this that haven't been written yet. It didn't run on Broadway for that long, all things considered, and these things need time to gain attention after the initial buzz, if it happens at all. If this transfers to the West End successfully with high critical acclaim, and gets picked up elsewhere, then writers and journalists will start to spot a demand for people to know the background, at which point we can cite it. I just feel that it isn't there yet. How would you feel about leaving this article as B class (it's a lot better than when I started the review, granted) and chalking it down to experience? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

B is fine.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)