Wikipedia:Peer review/Pipe Dream (musical)/archive1

Pipe Dream (musical)

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because… I intend to nom it for FA, and I'd like feedback. The plot section is not yet expanded as I am waiting for a copy of the published script to come in the mail, everything else is fair comment.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 13:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Continuing my education in the lesser-known works of Rodgers and Hammerstein. I'll leave the plot section aside until you say it's complete.

General points

• Dablink on Annie Get Your Gun
• One of your external links is dead
• Couple of presntational points:-
  • There's an ugly white space in the Music and recordings section, caused by locating the Rodgers photo there. Does he need to br there? On the other hand, the section looks as though it could be expanded. There's little about the music as such, and only a brief mention of one recording.

There is only one recording of Pipe Dream. And that's all I've been able to find on Rodgers' style here. I will look for mere before I hit FAC

• • The end of the text is untidy, with a one-line paragraph followed by a short blockquote. It looks much neater if you integrate the quote into the paragraph.

Prose

• Lead
  • On of my regular opera reviewers insists that the year of the work should appear in the first sentence. I think this is good advice, and could be applied here.

I don't have a problem with that.

• • "Pipe Dream premiered in 1955..." Give date, theatre and location.
  • Several references to "the play", which is not a particularly good description of the work. In paragraph 3, you could say Hammerstein revised the script, or the story.
• Inception
  • "Hammerstein and Rodgers" - why the inversion? (Sullivan and Gilbert, Clark and Lewis, Mary and William etc)

Just mixing it up.

• • Try to resolve "...the show. The show..."

I have to go out now, but I'll be back later. Brianboulton 14:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Continuing...

• Although inception history is generally fascinating I wonder whether, in para 3, you are overdoing the detail when you summarise the Cannery Row plot? Some condensation preferable, I think.

Most of these events happen in Pipe Dream, so I am establishing that Sweet Thursday (not Cannery Row) has a similar plot.

• "Originally, the three..." What three is this?
• "...having the female lead be a prostitute": Clumsy, passive. Suggest "having a prostitute as the female lead".
• Returning to the issue of overdetailing, is there a need (in the last para) for so much information on projects which R & H did not take up?

Writing and casting

• "The soprano had written two mystery novels and had been a part owner of the St. Louis Browns baseball team." Info for the Traubel article, maybe, but not really relevant here.

"Re Andrews: "...only to find that she had just signed a two-year contract." Clarify with whom, otherwise the sentence seems incomplete.

• Do you "engage" theatres?
• The "them" in the final sentence - not wholly clear.

Rehearsals and tryouts

• No particular comments

Musical numbers

• Someone is bound to point out that you need ndashes, not hyphens

Productions

• "had long not allowed..." Surely, "disallowed"?

Another short break. Will be back to finish Brianboulton (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for what you've done, and at a very busy time for you. Looking forward to the remainder. Hope to get it to FAC perhaps around the weekend.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, just noticed. I did the plot last night. Book came.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

With the exception of finding more info on Rodgers's music, I think I'm up to date on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Productions (continued)

• I still think "Rodgers and Hammerstein had long not permitted group sales..." is inelegant phrasing. Why not: "R and H had only recently permitted..."?
• Possibly something needed between "The poor reviews of Pipe Dream made a national tour or London production impractical" and "Productions of Pipe Dream are extremely rare..." Otherwise the jump to present times is too sudden. Perhaps: "Since the close of the Broadway run, productions have become extremely rare..." (no need to repeat the show's name)

Music and recoedings

• Comments above

Reception and aftermath

• Consider placing this section before "Music" - as we do in opera articles. It seems more logical
• "demizens"? I know it's in a quote, but I don't think the word exists. Misprint for "denizens"? If it stays I think it should have a [sic]

No, that is my typo.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• The words "who wrote a book about the works of Rodgers and Hammerstein" are redundant, since the book is listed in the bibliography.
• Previous point about the short blockquote - still looks untidy to me, but it's a matter of choice.

Plot

• The time, as well as the place, should be indicated, I am told
• "In the wee hours" is colloquial and imprecise
• Maybe you work "in" rather than "at" a laboratory

In American English, they are equivalent "I work at the post office" rather than "I work in the post office" would be preferred. I've changed it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Hazel has not fallen far from that tree": I've no idea what this is referring to.

He's dumb as an ox, just like Mama. I've clarified.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Close repetiton (line 2) of "comes in"
• Try to avoid "...Doc. Doc..."
• "to have Suzy be at the Bear Flag". The "be" is redundant.
• Same sentence: "Fauna takes Suzy into the Bear Flag." Unnecessary repetition of cafe name. End "Fauna takes Suzy in."
• "Suzy is fully aware of what kind of a place it is." The plot summary should be independent from the rest of the article. The summary has not to this point indicated the nature of the Bear Flag cafe, so "what kind of a place it is" requires explication.
• "she wants to get Suzy out of the house" - it needs to be explicit that "the house" refers to the cafe.
• "The date is the source of great interest by the people of Cannery Row" I think you mean "to", not "by". And you need to clarify that the "date" they are interested in is that between Doc & Suzy, not the day/month/year.
• "Doc wears an unaccustomed necktie, while Suzy's polish wears thin at times." Apparent non-sequitur connected by a "while". Perhaps: "During their meal, Doc wears an unaccustomed necktie; Suzy's attempts at polished behaviour wear thin at times".
• "The next morning, the girls of the Bear Flag are recovering from the members of the private party." Hmm, I think you should delete "the members of".

... please, you're British!" I have rephrased it slightly, I think it was too blatant in its humor, but I think I've toned it down. They are literally complaining about the members (as in people) who were there the previous evening, and the pun is too delicious to entirely lose!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Fauna, at first in the costume of a witch, is transformed into a Fairy Godmother." That sounds paranormal; should it be "Fauna, at first in the costume of a witch, transforms herself into a Fairy Godmother"?

That is all I have. Brianboulton (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review. I will work through your changes and nom this tonight or tomorrow. I may have had too much fun writing this and it may show a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)