Talk:On the Record (musical revue)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Musical Theatre, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to musical theatre. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
 |
On the Record (musical revue) was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.
Date of review: 11 August 2006 |
[edit] Good Article nomination has failed
The Good article nomination for On the Record (musical revue) has failed, for the following reason:
- I have failed On the Record's GA nomination for two reasons. First, the huge list of musical numbers is far far far too long, it needs to be summarized and split-off into something like List of musical numbers from On the Record. Second, large sections of text are unsourced (the entire Musical Number section, for example). Also, while not a reason for failing as they may be true, are you sure the photographer of the three images released all rights over them? Some kind of statement/link to a statement would be nice. Staxringold 14:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Issues have been addressed and the article has been re-nominated. — warpedmirror (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Failed "good article" nomination
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of April 9, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?: Very nicely written.
- 2. Factually accurate?: Looks good. Well referenced. In footnote #6 however, there is a typo "I really think your swell." I think that should be "I really think you're swell."
- 3. Broad in coverage?: Thorough in the covered areas. But (and this is the main reason I failed it, because it's a really nice article so far) I think there should be some inclusion about the financial success of the show. How much did it make? How successful was it? How was it marketed? Lunchboxes, soundtracks, toys, etc... There is a brief mention of the release of a recording. That should be a springboard for expansion in this area.
- 4. Neutral point of view?: Good, but not quite there yet. I have the most problem with these phrases: "Others felt..." "Regardless of the critics' opinions of the show itself, most felt..." "Some critics felt..." These could be improved by saying "Reviewers (such as XYZ) felt it was..." or "Rolling Stone magazine said..." or "Roger Ebert said..." As far as her getting the role of Belle, it should said that "Such and such said that her performance persuaded Disney to hire her..." or somthing to that effect.
- 5. Article stability? Seems stable. Not a vandal playground.
- 6. Images?: I see the image tags, but those are controversial and highly abused tags, and they should be substantiated. What proof do you have the rights have been released? This could be solved with a simple link to the release on the image pages, or some reference (if they came from a hard copy).
When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far. --Esprit15d 17:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
