This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a
WikiProject dedicated to coverage of
theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the
project page, or contribute to the
project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Sorry about the edit conflict. Please check to make sure that I did not lose any of your changes. I did some reorganization and proofreading. I simplified the infobox, but I am no expert on infoboxes for non-musical plays. Hope that helps! --
Ssilvers (
talk)
15:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Music stands
Hi. The plot should not contain production information like the info about the music stands. Other productions might use electronic screens, or the actresses might be "off book". That is why I put the music stands above in the history section. The black clothing could be mentioned though, as it seems to be part of the script. I don't know about the theatre project, but in the musicals project, we do not put any sort of meta-production type into in the plot section at all. --
Ssilvers (
talk)
23:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)reply
The play was then scheduled for 3 back-to-back 4-week runs with rotating 5 person casts beginning September 21, 2009. looks like a maths exercise. Can you rephrase this in a better prose style?
The Geffen Playhouse run was initially scheduled to play from May 12, 2010 to November 19, 2010, but it has been extended to July 4, 2011. This is now dated information.
Beckerman's memoir takes as its departure the clothing worn at pivotal times of her life (and by O'Donnell and the author's other friends) and serves as the foundation for the show. Who is O'Donnell? The actor? Why is this in a plot description?
Generally composed of comic stories, the show often addresses sad or sentimental issues. sloppy and confused, is this meant to be singular or plural.
As I look at the sentence I see "Generally composed of comic stories" properly modifying "the show" to say that the show is generally composed of comic stories. The rest of the sentence " the show often addresses sad or sentimental issues" seems to be grammatical and proper. I don't understand your point regarding singular or plural.--
TonyTheTiger (
T/
C/
BIO/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:FOUR)
22:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)reply
The whole of the plot section seems badly organised and sloppily written. Try and rewrite as a cohesive whole, rather than a collection of dis-connected sentences.
In Bloomberg News, the critics commented that the playwrights were "literary alchemists expert at mixing the sentimental and the satirical and turning out something poignant" and noted that the female roles dominated in a performance where "The men are extras." Suggests that there are men in the cast. Those referred to are in the audience.
Sure, feel free to ask some one else, but I am crystal clear that The men are extras. They can’t hold a candle to the memories of clothing every woman watching conjured instantly in her head and, nodding, seemed to say, “Got that right.” means that the men in audience were extras.
Jezhotwells (
talk)
16:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)reply
''No Tony Awards, Outer Critics Circle Awards or Theatre World Awards recognition. no need to mention things that didn't happen.
Overall not very well written, the various sections read like a collection of sentences thrown together without any style. Better, but the History section jumps about chronologically - in the fourth paragraph we jump back to the early productions.
The show's monologues are sourced largely from Beckerman's bestselling 1995 book and recollections of friends, including O'Donnell. Needs to make clear that the "friends" are friends of the playwrights - not the author of the book.
In addition the revised lead: The original Off-Broadway production and its cast were recognized critically. In addition the show, which had a rotating cast, was recognized for excellence in casting. Rather poor. What does "recognized critically" mean? Please clarify. Again, "recognized for excellence in casting."?
There should be some info about the playwrights and how this work fits into their body of works. There is little discussion of the genesis of the play - why was it written?
But you can look harder for sources. We certainly could do with a paragraph on the source book. I found an on-line reference here.
[2]
How did it evolve from conception to first production?
How was the production team chosen?
These questions too, could be answered by looking harder for sources. There should also be a little detail about the playwrights and their previous plays.
Jezhotwells (
talk)
16:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)reply
Nary a one of them is
notable, AFAIK. Thus, tales regaling their composition are not prevalent or even existent in RS to my knowledge. If any of these people were notable, I might be able to compile such stories. If you could point me to any google search that might yield prominent results to answer this question, I would better understand your concern.--
TonyTheTiger (
T/
C/
BIO/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:FOUR)
20:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)reply
Nora Ephron wrote Imaginary Friends (play), and both Ephrons have written notable screenplays. In any event there needs to be a background section describing the playwrights' experience and how the play came to be conceived and prepared for the first benefit. --
Ssilvers (
talk)
20:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)reply
There should be more separation in the description of the various productions:
Was the cast the same at Geffen as in NY? Overlapping?
The Plot (synopsis) section is based on reviews, but it should be based on
the script itself.
No. WP is a summary of secondary sources. In cases where the vast majority of the plot is outlined in secondary sources, the script should be used to iron out the wrinkles, but for the type of performance where the plot is not outlined in RS, the script should not be used as the sole basis for the plot, IMO. This is not the type of theatrical experience where a chronological plot is important based on inferences from the secondary sources.--
TonyTheTiger (
T/
C/
BIO/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:FOUR)
14:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)reply
No, sorry, that is not right. See
Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary. The primary source can and should be used in writing plot summaries. I think that you will see that the plot summary of Hamlet and most other FA and GA-class plays is based on the play's script. This article shows why this is absolutely essential, as the plot summary is both inadequate and contains lots of stuff that is not "plot". --
Ssilvers (
talk)
19:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)reply
Although on occasion I pay busfare to look up stuff downtown at the main
Chicago Public Library, I never pay for anything for wikipedia. I donate my time. WRT, Hamlet, ROTFLOL. No this play will not match up to any Shakespearean work, not even his 25th most popular play. This is an
Off-Broadway work. Like I said, you have to calibrate expectations based on what is in the RS. The RS don't feel the plot is fit to print. I will summarize the RS and that is what WP will have unless someone wants to find it. This article is like my
Jordan Kovacs GA above. Most college athlete GA recount high school accomplishments. However, in his case we are dealing with a walkon with no DI offers. That is sort of what a Unique Theatrical experience winner is compared to the average subject of GACs. He probably did stuff in high school that could be uncovered. The breadth requirement must be calibrated.--
TonyTheTiger (
T/
C/
BIO/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:FOUR)
20:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)reply
The reviews, interviews, etc. should be used to create an "analysis" section about the themes discussed in the play.
I have co-authored a lot of GAC and you are the first co-author who put up roadblocks to one. This seems to be the type of change you could handle if you wanted to help the project.--
TonyTheTiger (
T/
C/
BIO/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:FOUR)
15:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)reply
Wow! That is so unfair. You asked me some time ago to review this article and see if I could help. I did so - I did not "co-author" this article, I just tried to move the article forward, at your request, even though it is not anywhere on my to do list. I think it is unfair to the project for someone to nominate an article for GA when they are so patently unready - for example when the nominator has not even obtained the script. Please read the reviewer's comments below and try not to be defensive. I would again urge you to withdraw your other other play nominations from GA consideration. They are patently not ready. Be patient and bring them up through c-class to B-class first. Get the scripts to use to summarize the plot in your own words. Write analysis sections using the reviews and interviews. Then consider whether they are ready. --
Ssilvers (
talk)
19:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)reply
P.S. I use the term co-author broadly, but your efforts helped me a great deal. Anyways the point is that I have been at this a long time and the article was within a decent cleanup effort of GA. I still think it is pretty close. I have just never had a person who I felt could help me get an article over a GA hump put forth an objection like yours. Co-author, article-mover, whatever you want to call it.--
TonyTheTiger (
T/
C/
BIO/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:FOUR)
01:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)reply
The plot should be a chronological description of the events in the script.
I urge the nominator to look at some FA and GA level plays before nominating more plays for GA. I think this article has a long way to go to even reach B-class. --
Ssilvers (
talk)
I think that you just don't what a broad article about a play should be like, Tony. Have you seen the play? Have you read the acting script? (it is available on Amazon for only 8 dollars
[3]). Have you read the original book? You would need to start there to be able to tell which stories were sourced from the book, although of course you would need to find someone else who says that. You appear to be trying to structure an article on a handful of newspaper reviews, found on an internet search. That really is not good enough when you are trying to write about theatre. You don't even mention the director. Take a look at some of the Theatre project GA and B class articles to see what you should be aiming at. Can you sort all of that out in seven days - or should I just not list at this time until you are ready to present a good article?
Jezhotwells (
talk)
07:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)reply
In response to "I think that you just don't [know] what a broad article about a play should be like, Tony.". First of all, I have written a GA for the Theatre project, (
Pill Hill (play)), and secondly, I am pretty familiar with the GA process. Within a given topic, the GA standards are different depending upon the extent to which the subject is written about in
WP:RS. Take two
American football players like say
Jordan Kovacs and
Tai Streets. Both are credible GAs. Q: Why doesn't Kovacs have an extensive litany of detail about his high school career? A: Because no major newspapers wrote about it. WP is a summary of secondary sources. Streets played high school in Chicago and had extensive coverage in one of the nation's foremost newspapers. Let's look at another subject. Take two politicians like
Sandi Jackson and
Jack Kemp. Let's examine what we know about their lives before elective politics. Q: Why don't we have the same amount of detail for Jackson? A: Because it is not available in the
WP:RSs that we use to review the topic. When you have a subject that is covered by both the New York Times and Los Angeles Times, what is relevant to the reader is a summary of what those and other accessible sources say. For that same subject, if the NYT and LAT decided it was not important for that subject, then we are suppose to consider whether that topic is relevant to the reader. In terms of notability, this play is very low compared to most GA subject matter. Thus, we need to calibrate the expected level of detail based on what the secondary sources consider to be worth printing.
In response to your questions "Have you seen the play? Have you read the acting script?" The test of whether a GA is broad is not based on what you remember which I am sure you understand is
WP:OR. It is whether it is broad based on the secondary sources. The test is whether a NYT or LAT reader would look at the WP article and say "You left out a whole lot of important information". I did not buy the script or see a performance for my prior theatre GA. I summarized the plot based on what reliable sources felt was essential detail for the subject matter. The summary of this play is not about the chronology of the plot. The substantive encyclopedic content just needs to describe that this play is about wardrobes and relationships, IMO.
That being said, I am very willing to address concerns that relate to omissions of summaries of the RS. If there are substantive element of the plot that the NYT and/or LAT see as fit to print that I omitted, I am willing to address them. Omission of details that they did not find fit to print does not seem like a problem I should be addressing.--
TonyTheTiger (
T/
C/
BIO/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:FOUR)
12:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)reply
As it stands, I do not believe that this article meets the GA criteria. As pointed out above, details of how the play was developed and why it came about are missing. These may well be available, either in the published playscript or in interviews with the playwrights. The use of photographs of venues in LA and Sydney appears to be unnecessary as these do not add any useful information to the article. The playscript may well contain information on the character list, which appears to be conspicuously missing. The plot section could be further served by reading the script, rather than the present synthesis of a variety of reviews which on-line sources may not fully cover the plot. Relying solely on newspaper reviews is not what writing encyclopaedic articles is about. The prose is still lacking. How does "Daly originated the role in New York production. Kane played the role when it debuted in Los Angeles." fit in the plot section? "The Ephron's weaved together a collection of derivatives from the book with recollections of friends, including O'Donnell." Wrong use of apostrophe. "Her life is represented beginning with experiences in a Brownies dress and extending through her full life" Poor prose "life" - "life". These are just examples.
CBS interviews at
[4] and
[5] may provide useful background. There must have been a lot of other promotional interviews. In view of my misgivings, I shall not be listing this artcile at this time.
Jezhotwells (
talk)
17:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)reply
Updated comments
I was asked to review this article. Here are my current comments:
The article now has the beginnings of a background/genesis section (called "Development" here), but it is perfunctory and requires considerable expansion. It should describe how the work's inspiration and the process of how it came to be written, developed, cast and produced (see "summing up" above). It should also briefly give some background on the creators that is relevant to explaining why they decided to do this project and how it relates to their body of work. For an excellent example of this, see Carousel (musical)#Inception. I agree with Jezhotwells that finding additional interviews or articles about the piece should be useful in writing this.
[later]: Some progress has been made, but it is so vague that I had to leave several hidden comments. This is at least a start. --
Ssilvers (
talk)
16:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)reply
There has been some progress in the Themes section, which is good.
I see that a section has been added with a long list of names. This could be put in a separate list article, but it should not be here. This article should name the original cast and mention the original cast of each major production in the production section. It could also name a handful of the most notable people who have appeared as replacements in major productions, or who have appeared in the piece multiple times. Done.
It still does not have a plot description based on the script which is, IMO, a threshold requirement for any GA about a play or musical. As "summing up" mentions above, there should also be information about all five characters.
The Lead section still does not give an overview of all the information in (or that should be in) the article per
WP:LEAD
On the whole, I would call this a good C-class article, but not quite a B-class article, due to the remaining background and plot problems. --
Ssilvers (
talk)
19:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Per
WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, I created a new article:
Cast lists for ''Love, Loss, and What I Wore''. Then I moved the detail cast list for the Off-Broadway production there and left summary information in this article, together with a cross-reference. I think it is much better, but if you hate it, you can revert. My italics in the article title doesn't seem to work well. Do you know how to fix it? All the best, --
Ssilvers (
talk)
17:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)reply
"The show was initially presented as a part of the 2008 summer series at Guild Hall in East Hampton, NY," If it was part of the 2008 summer series, why does the infobox say it premiered in October 2009?
"It is expected to begin a national tour in the United States beginning the fall of 2011 in Chicago." Do you have a more specific date, considering it's fall currently? It looks like the show is currently running. Indicate this in lead?
"...and she wrote the 2002 play Imaginary Friends, which fictionalizes the antagonistic relationship between Lillian Hellman and Mary McCarthy. Ephron sometimes co-authors screenplays with her sister, writer-producer Delia Ephron, including You've Got Mail (1998), Hanging Up (2000) and Bewitched (2005)." Source?
"...Nora Ephron wrote the introduction to Beckerman's eponymous 1995 book" Add Beckerman's first name and red link (if you or someone plans to make an article on the author soon; otherwise might as well remove the red links)
Unless policy has changed, this is not the case. The only time that would be appropriate would be if the article were quite long (50-60 KB or more) with the name appearing late in the main text. In this case the article is only 17KB and the reappearance of the name is not that far from its introduction to the reader.--
TonyTheTiger (
T/
C/
BIO/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:FOUR)
03:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)reply
"She identified with the stories in the book because the book..." the book... the book (looks sloppy)
"Once she decided to adapt the book into a play, she and her sister emailed 100 women for stories.[2]" Need to clarify this more. The source has a lot more to say about it
The "Initial benefit productions" section makes it a little difficult to differentiate the various shows (you explain what Dress for Success is two or three sentences after its first mention). Are the middle sentences all part of the same show?
"By the end of 2010, the play had been staged in New York, Los Angeles, Toronto and Buenos Aires and was scheduled to play in Australia (at the Sydney Opera House), France, Mexico, Brazil, Germany, Scandinavia and the Philippines.[10] " What do mean "was scheduled"? Did the play operate in those countries the following year?
The plot section might better suited earlier in the article (before production info). I noticed you kept mentioned "Gingy", and had no idea who what was. The plot would help clarify this.
Are the reviews reviewing specific shows (i.e. with different casts)? Or just the overall play script? If the former, indicate this (the section may need to be reorganized)
Still missed some: "While Reiner says, "There's an amusing "I hate my purse" segment",[9]". Look carefully for others (mainly in reception section I believe)
Rubycomment!01:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)reply
All but a few of the issues have been addressed. These few I'm not happy about (still think the author should have first name in article body, etc), but I think they're minor enough not to argue over. Pass for GA.
Rubycomment!04:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)reply