Open main menu

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1887 play)/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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2017 [1].


Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1887 play)Edit

Nominator(s): RL0919 (talk) 06:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The dual character of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is one of the most famous monsters in horror fiction, and this play is one of the earliest and most influential dramatic presentations of the character. The play also has unexpected connections to Dracula and Jack the Ripper. I want to thank User:J Milburn for providing the GA review, and User:Miniapolis from the Guild of Copy Editors for helping get the prose into shape. I'm hoping the reviewers here have the potion to finish transforming this into a featured article. RL0919 (talk) 06:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Tintor2
  • Remove all the redlinks. I haven't seen a single FA with them.
  • The section "Jekyll-Hyde transformation" uses three references together. Could you separate them a bit. In its current state, it seems like all references say the same thing.
  • Try avoiding short paragraphs and either merge them or expand them.

Other than that, I found this article in good shape. Ping me when you do and I'll give you my support. Also, if you could comment on my own FAC, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/D.Gray-man/archive1, I would appreciate. Good luck.Tintor2 (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Replying on only the redlink point (I'm not the nominator)—please see WP:RED. Best, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
@Tintor2: Thanks for the review. I have redistributed the references about the transformation, and consolidated a few paragraphs. Hopefully those changes address your second and third points. Regarding the redlinks, I have a two-part reply: First, I respectfully disagree with the suggestion that FAs should not contain redlinks. Not only is this not one of the FA criteria, the guideline at WP:RED encourages redlinks for subjects that ought to have articles. I've removed one link that I'm less sure about, but I believe that Mansfield's later plays are notable and should get articles. Second, as a practical matter, I doubt that the links will even be red by the time this FAC ends (or in the event of an unusually short candidacy, certainly not for much longer), because I expect to create the articles myself. Today I created the article about Prince Karl. That leaves just two to fill in. So I'm hoping you will not allow the temporary absence of these articles to prevent your support. And of course let me know if there is anything else you think is needed. --RL0919 (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Drive-by comment - you really like parenthetical asides. :-) Ctrl+f reveals 142 pairs in the article. Some are false positives, like the pair in the article title, but that's still a lot. Might be something to look for and try to work on throughout the article. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
@The ed17: Thanks for taking a look at the article. If you check closer, you'll find that 90% of the parentheses are in the references and the navigation box at the bottom of the article. That said, I believe another editor introduced more parenthetical items than I would normally prefer, so I've revised several of them. Thanks for pointing it out, and let me know if you spot any other opportunities for improvement. --RL0919 (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
@RL0919: You're very right—my apologies. A lot of them are in the navbox too. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Good work. I support it.Tintor2 (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Bruce1eeEdit

Lead
  • Infobox: An illustration from the original Boston performance would be better, if available.
First American productions
  • "Although he was ill, the author sent his wife and mother to the opening.": is there any reaction to the premier from Stevenson (via his wife and mother)?
1888 West End production
  • What about adding, in parenthesis perhaps, that Bram Stoker would later write Dracula.
Reception
  • "praised" and variants of that word are used quite frequently in this section – I think some synonyms should be used.
General
  • United Kingdom and United States are sometimes written out in full, and sometimes abbreviated UK and US; I think that one or the other should be used.
  • Redlinks: Are these referencing articles soon-to-be-created? If not I think they shouldn't be linked (see WP:REDNOT).
References / Works cited
  • The references "Winter 1910a" and "Winter 1910b" don't match the two Winter entries in the Works cited section – they should be qualified by "1910a" and "1910b". (See {{Harvnb}}.) The blue links in References point to the correct entries in Works cited, but anyone working from a printed copy of the article won't be able to marry the two.
  • The "Danahay & Chisholm 2011" references use "loc <number>" instead of a page number. I know Kindle ebooks don't have page numbers, but what is the number following "loc"?
    OK I worked this one out. Kindle books do have page numbers, but they also have a location within a page, which is what these references are using. —Bruce1eetalk 11:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Bruce1eetalk 09:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@Bruce1ee: Thanks for your review. I've updated the article to address most of your comments. Some specific replies as needed:
  • Unfortunately, I have not been able to find any images from the Boston premier or the first Broadway production.
  • For US/UK, they are now written out on first use in the lead and again on first use in the body, and abbreviated for all other uses.
  • Yes, these are appropriate redlinks for notable plays. Since older plays are the focus of much of my article creation work, odds are that I will have created them myself before this FAC closes.
  • Some Kindle books have page numbers, but this particular one only has the location numbers, at least as far as I can see on the Kindle reading app that I use.
Let me know if there is anything else I could do to improve the article. --RL0919 (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Support the prose and MOS. Thank you for addressing the points I raised, I'm happy with your changes. It's an interesting and nicely written article. Good luck with the nomination. —Bruce1eetalk 06:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from SarahSVEdit

Hi RL0919, this is written very nicely. Quick question about "Although he was ill, the author sent his wife and mother to the opening ..." Do you mean "because he was ill", or does "although" have some other function there? SarahSV (talk) 23:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Thanks for taking the time to review. There's no special meaning to "although" and I'm certainly open to changing the wording of the sentence. I'm not sure that "because" is the best choice, however. It could be taken to imply that they only went due to his illness. I believe the intention was for all three to attend (Sullivan reserved a box for them), and one of them simply did not because of his illness. Anyhow, let me know if you would like some change to the sentence, or if you spot anything else that could be improved. --RL0919 (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I was able to read one of the sources on snippet view, so I made a change, [2] but please revert if you're not keen. It's a minor thing, but it jumped out when I was reading through the article. SarahSV (talk) 00:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@RL0919: Question about this sentence: "The adaptation's changed social environment undercuts interpretations based on the novella's bachelor society, including interpretations in which Hyde signifies homosexuality or the corruption of a patriarchal society." I'm not quite sure what that means. SarahSV (talk) 02:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: There are interpretations of Stevenson's novella that focus on the lack of women in it -- all the significant characters are older bachelors. In some of these interpretations, Hyde symbolizes moral corruption within the novella's male-dominated society. In other interpretations, Hyde is a manifestation of Jekyll's suppressed homosexual desires. By adding prominent women characters who are romantic interests for the men (Agnes Carew is engaged to Jekyll and leered at by Hyde; Dr. Lanyon has a wife), plus a landlady for Hyde, Sullivan's play doesn't support those interpretations the way the novella does. Possibly the current version of the article tries to explain this too briefly. --RL0919 (talk) 03:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
@RL0919: I wonder if it could be rewritten. It isn't clear (to me) what "changed social environment" refers to—I assume that refers to the introduction of women—or "the corruption of a patriarchal society". SarahSV (talk) 04:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: Gave it a try with this edit. Let me know if that works, or feel free to revise further if you are so inspired. --RL0919 (talk) 04:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Will look shortly. Something missing here: "making Hyde's evil sexual and the Jekyll-Hyde transformation central to the performance". Or does it mean "making Hyde's evil sexual in nature"? SarahSV (talk) 04:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm probably being dense, but this still seems obtuse:
"In some interpretations of the novella, Hyde signifies moral corruption within a patriarchal society represented by the other male characters; other interpretations suggest Hyde is involved in homosexuality. These interpretations of the novella are more difficult to apply to the play due to Sullivan's addition of women characters and heterosexual relationships."
What is "moral corruption within a patriarchal society", and how do the "other interpretations" differ from the first one? SarahSV (talk) 04:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
In both cases we are talking about multiple interpretations from various interpreters that have a common theme. I'll try to summarize them without lapsing into the academic jargon that most of them come with:
  • Interpretation set number 1: The mostly-male character set in the novel represents the patriarchal society of Victorian England (or, for those who want to be more expansive, patriarchal societies in general). Hyde, as an evil character that springs up within this society, represents the moral failings of the society as a whole. Exactly what those moral failings are proposed to be will vary depending on the views of the person making the interpretation (if they bother to specify -- in some settings patriarchy is simply assumed to be evil per se).
  • Interpretation set number 2: The character set consists of unattached males because some or all of them are repressed homosexuals. Jekyll in particular seeks (consciously or not) to liberate his homosexual desires, and Hyde is the result.
These are two entirely different interpretations whose commonality is that they depend on the absence of women in the story, which is what Sullivan changed. --RL0919 (talk) 05:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
@RL0919: thank you for explaining. Can you find a way to make it clearer, spell it out more? SarahSV (talk) 05:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Thank you, that's much clearer. Something that jumped out in the lead when I first read it: "It is an adaptation of Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, an 1886 novella by Scottish author Robert Louis Stevenson. ... After Hyde murders the father of Jekyll's fiancée ..." Then later in the lead: "In writing the stage adaptation, Sullivan made several changes to the story; these included a romantic interest for Jekyll ..." It isn't clear until later in the article that Jekyll had no fiancée in the original version, so when the reader reaches "a romantic interest for Jekyll", they might wonder what is meant. SarahSV (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Support. This is well-written, interesting, nicely laid out, and it seems comprehensive and well-sourced. SarahSV (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your support and for following up on my previous clarification edit -- I got pulled away before I could update about it here. Per your comment above about "fiancée" and "romantic interest", I tweaked the wording to try to make it more clear in the lead that the fiancée is an addition. --RL0919 (talk) 03:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's better, thank you. SarahSV (talk) 03:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Support from Cas LiberEdit

A good read. I made a couple of minor changes, if they're ok. It seems comprehensive, though I wonder if there is any more material on the Jekyll-Hyde transformation (i.e. what Hyde looks like), as Hyde's appearance is often a central part of discussion of any adaptation. But if there is nothing in the source it can't be elaborated on. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your support; no issue with the edits. There are several descriptions of Mansfield's performance as Hyde, so I've added a sentence about it. --RL0919 (talk) 04:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Yep, a good segment to add. thanks Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


Support from JoshEdit

I mostly had my say at GAC, and, looking through the article again, it seems to have improved. I have made some small tweaks; hopefully nothing controversial. I have no hesitation in supporting, but I do have a couple of comments: Josh Milburn (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

  • "The playwright strengthened the contrast between Jekyll and Hyde in Stevenson's original" Could this be reworded? The playwright doesn't strengthen anything in the original, he strengthens things in contrast to the original.
  • the Cambridge Tribune or The Cambridge Tribune? And I am I right that this is a US paper? It is cited alongside details about the reception of the Boston performance.
Thank you for your support. Looks like Sarah fixed your first item. For the second, the masthead includes "The", so I've made it consistently that. I also just created the article about it, and yep, it was a US paper. --RL0919 (talk) 05:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Source reviewEdit

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed it somewhere, I think we still need a source review. I think can request one at the top of WT:FAC now. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, still needed. I presciently added a request. --RL0919 (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Sources all seem wholly appropriate and reliable.

  • I believe The Saturday Review of Politics, Literature, Science, and Art is generally just known as The Saturday Review.
  • We have an article on Lettice Cooper you could link to.
  • What is the nature of the Geduld source? If it's an edited collection/anthology/sourcebook, you should probably cite the chapters separately, rather than citing the book as a whole.
  • We have an article on Scott Allen Nollen.

I can't reliably speak to comprehensiveness, but a search during the GA review threw up nothing which had been missed. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the source review. Links added for authors and name shortened for the Review. Regarding Geduld, it is more of a sourcebook, and many chapters are reprints from other authors. For those I have cited accordingly (e.g., "Review in The Theatre, September 1, 1888, reprinted in ...") or where possible simply used the original source. However, there are some chapters (mostly list/chronology content) that are not attributed to any other author or source. It is only those that are cited simply as "Geduld 1983". Let me know if you have any other sourcing concerns. --RL0919 (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


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