Wikipedia:Peer review/Kinky Boots (musical)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kinky Boots (musical)[edit]

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… the article is a worthy article for a GA nomination however it is incomplete. It needs issues addressed such as missing seattle cast and style of music used, however i would appreciate the article having a peer review to show any further issues that needs addressed prior to a further nomination. It failed for a variety of reasons at last GA but I'm sure there are other issues not included in that need addressed. Blethering Scot 22:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Blethering Scot 22:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SandyGeorgia[edit]

I looked in to the article because User:Ssilvers pinged me, as we have worked together on many musical theatre articles, and at WP:FAC.
  1. It is unfortunate that the article was nominated at Good articles without first going through peer review.
  2. There is a good deal of off-topic personalization on the talk page; in the best interest of the article, that should stop.
  3. There is a competent peer review already on the talk page, from Ssilvers, who knows the requirements for top content in the musical theatre realm as well as anyone.
  4. I concur with Ssilvers that there is no reason for an album track listing to be included in the article; it duplicates the musical synopsis, while adding nothing new on an album that might have its own article, if it becomes notable.
  5. On content, perhaps sources have not addressed this and if that is the case, there is nothing that can be done, but from reading the article, one cannot discern how this production-- with marginal reviews-- won the Tony for best musical. (My money was on Christmas Story, so perhaps I'm biased :)

Summarizing, before re-approaching GA, I hope the off-topic personalization on talk will end, the Cast album section will be removed, Ssilvers list on talk will be addressed, and please explore whether there are any sources discussing why this show took the Tony for best musical. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That last is an interesting question, SandyGeorgia. I didn't see A Christmas Story, but I thought that Matilda was far more impressive in every respect than Kinky Boots. Most surprising was that Lauper won for best score, as Matilda has a really excellent score. I'm sure that there must have been articles written after the Tonys (held on June 9, 2013) discussing what the critics thought of the awards panel's choices. On a personal note, thanks for the comments above. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on Matilda -- I hope a source can be found that discussed how this production won the Tony, but if nothing is written, nothing you can do about that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may be misremembering, but I thought I read articles before the Tonys that indicated the likely winner would be Matilda ... that may be one thing you could search on for relevant commentary about Kinky wrt best musical. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sandy, keep in mind that by the time of the Tony's Kinky had won all the notable best musical awards for which it had been nominated (Drama League and Outer Critics Circle). How far before the Tonys do you mean? Matilda had been the favorite before awards season, but I am not sure about by the day of the Tonys.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are quite a few British press stories that indicated the nationalism side of the story. Having seen Matilda about six times in both countries and Kinky Boots twice i would say Matilda was probably more deserving but Kinky Boots couldn't be called an unworthy winner and there is a lot of hope in the Uk that it will transfer over.Blethering Scot 15:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What part of independent do you not get. This is unreal. Blethering Scot 16:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Blethering Scot[edit]

The peer review is massively incomplete.

  • There were plenty of positive reviews for the show as well, we seem to be more focused on the negative ones.
    • I'm responding to this for Tony's benefit, as Tony seems to be doing the work to modify the article in response to the comments here. Wikipedia articles about musicals tend to be promotional and fan-crufty. We need to give a balanced view of all the reviews, positive, mixed and negative. We need to resist the temptation to be promotional. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't include type or style of the music and why they choose not to use music from the movie.
    • I am rarely the person to make any commentary on musical style because I don't understand music at that level. I.E., this is outside of my area of expertise.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You do not need to comment, you just need to look at your sources that discuss the film, and see if they say anything about the film music. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't include enough of an over view of the cast.
    • Not sure exactly what you mean by this, but I would agree that the Productions section should discuss casting, if possible -- that is, why the particular cast members were chosen, and what the critics thought of their performances. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is not long enough.
  • Why did they choose Kinky Boots a movie that didn't do overly well at the box office and then change the focus of the musical from that.
    • A good question, that I imagine critics and commentators have written about; however, they did not change the focus much; the musical is more similar to the film than most musical adaptations of films, so I think Fierstein's quote that we already have pretty much covers the second half of your comment. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since when is movie box office a serious consideration for theatrical adaptation. I can't remember the last Shakespeare play to lead a weekend box office.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is a fair question as to why they chose to adapt a film that was not popular. Some of the articles must have discussed this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Currently, the article presents the fact that Roth was intrigued by the possibilities of adapting the movie and that Mitchell agreed. There was little discussion of what makes good material for an adaptation just the fact that they agreed that this was good material.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • OK, I agree that we now explain her motivation sufficiently, at least for GA. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also there are errors in the synopsis which is an issue thats been highlighted several times.
    • Can you be more specific? Or, better yet, fix them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cast album should not be removed as i am totally against having a separate article as suggested by Ssilvers, when the host article is not large enough to need splitting into sub articles. There is enough notability for a separate article but sub articles are a wast of space unless the main article is huge and needs splitting as a link still needs provided. I will certainly do that or to be honest Ssilvers should since it was his suggestion, but a merge back is a possibility.Blethering Scot 16:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images of Sands and Fierstein do not add to anything that cant be achieved through text alone. They also look highly out of place. If they were photos that had some link to the production then yes they would be beneficial but for now they are not. This was raised at GA in a small way but not addressed.Blethering Scot 17:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • With regard to the battleground mentality. How can i work with someone who made allegations against me but won't justify them. And as clearly we cant work together at all what do you suggest we do as we both want to improve this article, i suspect more me than him but the point stands.Blethering Scot 17:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't all the talk page stuff at Talk:Kinky_Boots_(musical)#Thoughts_about_the_article_at_this_point be listed here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Was added before peer review, which was supposed to be independent. I would rather they were kept separate with everyone posting the issues they feel need fixed here and then they can be systematically worked through. You add your thoughts too, and I'm sure @Ssilvers: will add the ones he thinks are not already covered above. Obviously given the tensions here we are best to discuss all points and collaboratively come up with a way forward.Blethering Scot 20:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wehwalt[edit]

B. Scot, I was asked to look at the article as well. Will you accept my word that my views will be entirely independent? By way of disclosure, Ssilver and I have worked on a number of articles together, but we've also had some conflict. But if you do not think I am neutral, I'm not certain what help I can be. I have not yet read the article and only glanced at the back and forth.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)--Wehwalt (talk) 09:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinions would be appreciated.Blethering Scot 12:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK here goes. The prose seems fairly good in general but needs tweaking in spots. I have not looked at the matters under discussion, this is simply my comments after a run through (well, the first half, I'll get back to you later or tomorrow with the remainder). Then I will look at the other comments and may have a word or two on that, depending if I think it will help.
Lede
  • The sentence about Billboard might do better later on in the lede, possibly after the sentence about the premiere.
Background
  • The first paragraph could be organised better. It really repeats the information about the struggling factory, needlessly.
  • I certainly have no objection to copying quotes. You need not include the "he said", which just lead to nested quotes, which are a pain to deal with for the reader in my opinion.
  • "the blues album Memphis Blues," possibly one of the blues could be deleted, most likely the first one.
  • I'm mildly grumbly at Lauper deeming South Pacific part of her youth, as it premiered four years before she was born. Unless you are minded to tweak the prose, nothing to do but let it pass.
  • I don't know your age, but personal listening devices were not always popular and it was once common to hear your parents' albums and that would make it a part of her youth.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think my parents had a few cast recordings, but they very rarely played them.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Synopis
  • It may be over detailed. And it may need a rewrite for clarity. For example, the whole issue of who Simon is, is not made very clear until later.
I have tried to streamline and clarify it. I don't have a script, but I prepared this plot summary shortly after seeing the show because no one else had stepped forward to put in a plot summary. It certainly would be a good idea, if anyone can obtain the script, to review and refine it. The show is purposely coy about who (adult) Simon is until much later (it's supposed to be a surprise), so I tried to follow that idea. I hope the clarifications to the plot summary have addressed this. Again, if anyone can refine the plot summary, please go ahead and do so. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but the young Black lad's" If this is a reference to Simon's race, it is not usual, at least in my experience, to capitalise black. Also, you may hear objections from those who do not like the term "black". Unless he's from the Black Country? Midlands, after all.
  • In the opening scene, Simon is a young boy (about 10 years old in that scene), and yes, this refers to his race. I've now made it lower case. Is there a better term for us to use instead of black? They're in England, so we can't say "African American". Tony, do the reviews say "black", or if not, how do they describe Simon's race, if at all? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beats me. All I know is the British invade and go on after me for using "black" as a noun.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just took a very quick look. Porter said: "First of all, Lola is black. ... What I love about the story is that it's the black person who ends up rescuing the white people." Rex Reed said: "Wild black london performer". LA Times: "Lola, a flamboyant black drag queen". New Yorker magazine: "a black drag queen". CBS: same. Wall St. Journal: same. Hollywood Reporter: quoting lyrics from the show: "I’m black Jesus, I’m black Mary". MSNBC: "...context of a black man versus a white man". So, his race is important. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was your search term? I had searched on (Kinky Boots Simon Black) and did not find much. What do you want to do with these search results?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It currently says that Simon grows up "in a black family". That's a little indirect, but I guess it is ok unless someone has a clearer way to say that he is black. But Wehwalt should note that I checked, and English dictionaries use the word "black" to refer to persons of African descent (and sometimes other dark-skinned people). -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lauren's crush seems rather in the middle of things there, can she be introduced earlier (if we have met her) and her idea about niche marketing may be less jarring.
Lauren is not prominent in the story until that point. I'm not sure when she is first seen, but if I recall correctly, she is pretty much only in crowd scenes until then. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then you need to introduce her better. As for the script, I did not see it on Amazon, but possibly there is a playbill with a synopsis?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I had the Playbill and used it in writing the Synopsis. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "so to speak". I would avoid the need by avoiding the pun.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although the lede says it is based on a true story, via the movie, the article never quite gets there. This should be simple.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
W, can you give Tony some suggested language for this? -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at it again, the discussion in the background section should be adequate.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Next tranche, sorry so short but I'm fairly worn out. The rest should be today. Pointless to have it sitting in my sandbox.

Production history
  • Perhaps it should be stated a little more clearly that the Illinois tryout program was for Broadway shows to have their tryouts in Chicago.
  • I think this is clear now. Looks ok to you, W? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think tryouts should be at least implicitly defined in the same paragraph where first used, possibly by moving the term "pre-Broadway run" to close proximity with first use. Try to use it naturally, not as a definition.
  • While I'm sure there were no major changes among the various producers and so forth between Chicago and Broadway, it still might be better to mention the "laundry list" of various functions in connection with Broadway, not Chicago. Possibly it should be its own paragraph.
  • I did a re-org of the section that I think addresses this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Prior to the June 9, 2013 Tony Awards, Kinky Boots had trailed its box office competitor, Matilda the Musical, in popularity. " Popularity? As measured by …?
  • If you look at the next WP:IC, you will see that the first paragraph contains the following: "“Kinky Boots” now attempts to catch up to the box office popularity of its chief competition at the Tonys, “Matilda the Musical.”"--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I clarified further by changing "popularity" to "sales". -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can something be said about ticket prices, including the premium ones?
  • Tony added something, although there are sources for ticket price/sales info that some people know how to access. I don't know how. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, thanks! I clicked on the grosses archive, and it gave me the cumulative gross to date, which I added to the article just now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I would prefer for the Playbill Vault link to go back in. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Music
  • "she felt challenged to have to write songs for different characters" this phrasing is a bit opaque. I suggest the rewrite have no more than one "to".
  • I would name the opening number when you mention it. As it is supposed to be a company song, presumably that explains why it is sung by fair crowd.
  • "The musical uses a twelve-member orchestra consisting of keyboards, percussion, bass, guitars, reeds, violin, viola, cello, trumpet, and trombone" There are 2x keyboards, guitars, and reeds, so I get 13 instruments.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some instruments are doubled. In this case, the reed player plays several reed instruments. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the remainder. I still haven't looked at the issues in dispute, though I am aware of the cast album questions.

It appears that there are no longer any "disputes", although Tony and I disagree about the Awards section. The discussion about this is on the talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Music
  • There seems something of a logical disconnect between the first sentence and the second. Modify the first to make it lead into the second better.
  • Done.
Cast album
  • I am concerned that with the back to back non-prose sections, that what is below it may not be seen by the reader. I do not think the track listing fully necessary, but I am aware of the feelings. Could it be done in a text box to the right of the "Cast album" prose?
  • I've moved the cast album material to a section further down called "Recordings", created a separate article about the album (Kinky Boots (Broadway cast album)) and added a cross-reference. When other recordings of the show are released from other productions or studio recordings, they can be added to this recordings section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Critical reaction
  • The first two sentences both begin with "upon".
  • Why is the (lengthy, favorable) Brantley quote given a prominent position above the "mixed reviews"?
  • I'm a bit taken back that we have to wait until the end of the article to learn the play is set in Northampton.
  • In the synopsis, we say that it is set in the English Midlands, during "hard economic times", which is, I think, the key information. I'm not even sure if Northampton is mentioned in the script. In any event, I don't think that naming the town is going to help readers interested in the Broadway production. If a West End production opens, and they specify Northampton, it may be helpful to British audiences, and we can make a point of specifying it in the synopsis then. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was really more taken by the last-minute mention, which I agree was unneeded. That's fine.
Awards etc.
  • "The Off-Broadway and Original Broadway productions" The caps here look a little odd to me, and the first term probably needs a link. Is Chicago considered Off-Broadway? Our article seems to limit it to NYC.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good catch. Chicago is not off-Broadway, it is regional. So, this should just say "The original production..." since it's the tryout and Broadway transfer of the same production. Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll give it another read over, I hope over the next day or so.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm way behind and a bit under the weather so it may be a little bit of time.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

Like Sandy, I was asked by Ssilvers to contribute to this review. My knowledge of stage musicals is slight, so my comments will tend to concentrate on prose and presentation.

Lead
  • I am not sure that the lead is long enough to fulfil its role as a summary of the entire article.
  • I'm also concerned about the numerous lead references. If the lead is a summary of all the main points in the article, then surely these cited statements are found in the main text, and cited there.
  • "Kinky Boots entered the 2013 awards season as the underdog but emerged as the victor". I'm not sure that this statement will mean much to the casual reader; terms like "underdog" and "victor" imply some degree of formal competition. From what I can gather, Kinky Boots won more awards than was expected, and more than any other show. Why not just say that?
Background and creation
  • First paragraph – a kind of mini-synopsis - is unnecessary and should be removed, after the words "of the same name".
  • Good catch. I agree with this, and will go ahead and do it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused about the sequence of events described in the second paragraph. Some parts of the story seem to be missing: what induced Roth to send Mitchell the DVD? After Roth sends the DVD, Mitchell is enthusiastic, and hopes (his "wish list") that Fierstein and Lauper will make it into a stage musical. Then, Fierstein approaches Lauper seeking a collaboration... Something is missing. When, and by whom, was Fierstein approached?
  • If you look at the source and search on Roth you will see the name Roth appears in the article once. There is nothing further about Roth other than that she sent the DVD to Mitchell. It is implicit she was trying to bend his ear to consider an adaptation, but nothing is said.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could at least say that she had worked with Mitchell before if that is true, and I think there is an explicit statement in one of your refs that Mitchell actually hired Fierstein. Can you find that? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made some tweaks based on the sources, and I think the story flows a lot better now. We don't say why she approached Mitchell, but I think we covered the most important bases now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his wish list" etc is magazine-style writing, unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Suggest simplify to "he sought to engage them to create the musical"
  • The fact that Lauper had performed on Broadway in The Threepenny Opera is a bit of a non sequitur to the information that Kinky Boots was her debut as a musical songwriter.
  • Clarified that the reference to Lauper in Threepenny Opera is aimed at showing that she was not entirely a theatre newbie. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fierstein said that there are..." → "Fierstein acknowledges..."
  • Why are the words "about the saving of a factory" in quotes?
  • Who is responsible for the quote that begins "At its core..."?
  • "Lauper's inspirations ranged from South Pacific and West Side Story of her youth as well as Aaron Copland's "Appalachian Spring" to contemporary entertainer Lana Del Ray." Clumsily put. Lauper was born in 1953, grew up in the 60s and 70s, so neither South Pacific nor West Side Story were really "of her youth". Appalachian Spring (which should be in italics not quotes) dates from 1944–45.
  • Close repetition of "reading".
  • "She gauged the material from the balcony during previews" Aren't you jumping ahead, to talk of previews at this stage?
  • Fixed. This was a mistake caused by conflating two different thoughts in this article cited. Ssilvers (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does the verb "workshopping" mean?
Synopsis
  • "Simon also grows up in the Midlands, but the young black lad's strict father is puzzled by the boy's high spirits". This sentence is misplaced, having no connection with the rest of the paragraph. It's not particularly useful information, only causing confusion at this point, and I suggest you delete it.
  • Well, the opening number is a scene comparing the young (maybe 11-year-old) Charlie and the young Simon, and sets up their contrasting lives, including their contrasting races, showing young Charlie to be traditional, serious, hardworking and conservative, and young Simon to be, um, hard-dancing, and fascinated by his mother's red high heels, which displeases his father. So something needs to be said. I tweaked the language; does that help? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Charlie's father dies suddenly, and he hurries home for the funeral..." Unfortunate placing of pronoun! Suggest reword along the lines of "When his father dies suddenly, Charlie hurries home..." etc.
  • You need to be consistent in the pronoun you use for Lola/Simon. You use, at various times, "her", "him/her" and "him". I'm not sure of the sexual etiquette but if "Lola" is a drag performer rather than a transsexual I don't think "her" is right. "Him/her" seems unnecessarily awkward; I suggest "him" and "he" all the way through is the most appropriate
  • Good idea, but the show is predicated on Lola being the preferred persona, both onstage and off (except in a few specific scenes), so I went the other way, with "her". -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd preface the sentence beginning: "Lauren, who works in the factory..." with the words: "Back in the Midlands,..."
  • "especially the intimidating Don": these words belong nearer the beginning of the sentence, e.g. "Some of them, especially the intimidating Don,..."
  • "blows his top" is slang
  • "He asks if Don has fulfilled Lola's wager by accepting Lola. Lauren explains that, no, the person that Don has accepted ... is Charlie!" No idea what that's about.
Chicago and Broadway
  • "Kinky Boots was considering taking advantage..." I think you mean the show's promoters were considering taking advantage etc
  • "The original production was rehearsed at the New 42nd Street Studios in New York City in September 2012 before beginning its pre-Broadway run at the Bank of America Theatre in Chicago, on October 2, 2012, which continued until November 4, 2012." Too long, convoluted, and grammatically dubious
  • "Rockwell had been nominated" – for what?
    Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the stuff in the second paragraph of this section is background – the credentials and awards of the people staging the show, rather than anything to do with the production history. Consider re-siting it.
    I moved the stuff about the creators to Background, but kept the stuff about the director and designers in Productions. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that keeping the critical reaction apart, separated from this section by several tables of information, is a good idea. My first reaction was to assume that there was no critical reaction to the Chicago performance and a single NYT review of the Broadway performance. You should seriously consider reorganising the article to keep connected information in one place.
  • I moved the production history section down to fix this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Previews had originally been scheduled to commence on March 5, but were moved forward two days on December 13, 2012,[27] which was 10 days after ticket sales had begun." Is this worth reporting? It seems like petty detail.
  • I have commented it out and suggest that Tony delete it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, "The Broadway performances run 2 hours and 20 minutes, including one intermission."
  • Yeah, I agree. That's a pretty standard running time for a Broadway show these days, so not a very enlightening statement. I'll let Tony make the cut. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tony, would you respond, please? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 4: Kinky Boots requires italics.
  • The sudden information about the show winning six Tony awards is disorientating. No prior information has been given about nominations, categories etc. This detail is given in a later section, which does not help the reader at this point.
  • "The show continued to be one of the top draws on Broadway that month" What month?
  • Fixed by deleting - this article only said that many of the big shows were selling well. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Music
  • "a New York Times critic said:" Why not name the person?
  • "connectedness": I don't think the word exists; the noun is "connection". If Lauper used the term, it should be in quotes and attributed.
    • It is most definitely a word. WP has both connectedness and Social connectedness. I can't find the word any more, but it should probably be restored with a link to the social kind if it was a direct quote.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • In fact, I want Ssilvers to take a look at this. this version of the article included the term followed by a WP:IC that used the term in a quote.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree that connectedness is a horrible word and should normally be replaced with "connection", but the point is moot. Here's what Lauper said: "Having to write songs for different characters, you have to be part of every minute of the show and you feel more responsible, I guess. Theater is ... [a] real team experience, and when the show is frozen you look at each other and feel this connectedness I have never felt before in my life." The first sentence is of interest to encyclopedia readers, but the second is not: the fact that Lauper felt "connected" to her collaborators is not of any interest, and the phrase has been deleted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cast album
  • I share the view expressed earlier in this review that the track listing is superfluous, given that it follows an almost identical listing of the musical numbers. Nor do I think think that the album cover adds anything to the article, or that its non-free use is tenable. It essentially duplicates the lead image, for which fair use is of course reasonable.
  • Jack removed the superfluous material, and I moved the cast album description to a separate section called "Recordings". -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Critical reaction
  • Just one press comment on the Chicago run?
  • "When writing for The Guardian..." Delete "When"
  • Introduce "Derek McLane", don't force your readers to use the link to find out who he is.
  • Having said that, I can't work out what he means by "it is not uncommon for repeat choreographer/set designer collaborations to result in intriguing innovation like Kinky Boots's conveyor belt dance scene." Can you elucidate?

That completes my review. I've not checked out the sources, but I think there's enough work here to be getting on with. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: Thanks for your comment and they are appreciated however I am wondering just how many people @Ssilvers: has approached which is starting to look like a rather high number. Certainly unusual or almost looking for sides in my opinion, anyhow i agree re the image on the cast cd so i will remove it. It adds information the musical numbers does not such as overall run time of the music, running order of the cd and track length. Its encyclopaedic information. Excluding this whats your opinion on creating sub articles when the main article is appropriate, not at too long a length and the info is notable. Personally creating a sub article is a last option whether notable or not and looking through there are equal numbers that have the track listing to including in a sub, obviously thats if they have at all but not all articles we have are at even a remotely decent standard never mind including everything. Ill Not stand in @Ssilvers: way if as he suggested someone does, he creates a good quality article which adds something we wouldn't be able to house in main article, but just feel a sub article is an easy way out because you don't like something, not because its necessary. Obviously the image may be something that could effect a GA but the content in my opinion would not. Blethering Scot 20:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks more to me like he has called in old, experienced hands with whom he has interacted and whom he feels "know their stuff". I don't play politics, I'm a content contributor. My contributions to musical theatre on WP are pretty much limited to R&H, but I have a nodding acquaintance with the subject. As a thought, you might want to strike your comments about Ssilver's intent. All of us who have reviewed the article at his request are old hands here, who it would be well to have as friendly resources.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt:The fact he told every one to read the comments then look at the Peer Review was an attempt to lead, if he had said just comment on peer review then that's different but he didn't. I will not be self striking the comments as I fully stand by it. He's Made accusations against me that we're unfounded and every attempt to ask him to come to my talk page and discuss civilly have been ignored. I don't think it was a case of old hands but simply a group of editors who one way or another he felt were highly likely to agree with his comments which he asked then to read before comenting. That's disgraceful in my view as attempting to influence a discussion is not on. The discussion should of been allowed to continue for another few days to allow some other more neutral editors to comment. All I wanted was an article that was likely to pass GA to be quite honest after dealing with this editor I no longer care whether any Musical Theatre articles get Ga as I don't want anything to do with him. However I will be keeping an eye on Ga's in this realm to make sure they actually meet the criteria and aren't lead through. Blethering Scot 13:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This PR seems to have died down. It did lead to great improvements in the article, which I now think is in striking distance of GA. Are there serious unresolved issues with this PR?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tony, many of the points above say "done" or "fixed", but some do not. Would you please indicate, with respect to each of the ones that do not, whether you think they are resolved? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • SandyGeorgia, Blethering Scot, Wehwalt, and Brianboulton are the people who need to state whether they are satisfied enough with the progress that this can go to GA. They are the parties who enumerated concerns. I listed no concerns.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Pinged to this discussion by the notification system, I am no longer watching as my comments were brief and general, and addressed early on. As to Ssilvers' request, no TTT, it is up to you to say if you have addressed Brian's concerns so he can revisit to say if he is satisfied. I believe it is you who is going to GAN? There is no reason to make the reviewer task harder than need be. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. folks. There are probably a few more things to do but not more than can be reasonably be handled at GAN. Add Talk:Kinky Boots (musical)/GA2 to your watchlist so that when someone starts it you can follow along.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Kinky_Boots_(musical)/archive1&oldid=1146532286"