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 Laser brain 16:26, 15 December 2010 [1].

---

Flower Drum Song[edit]

Flower Drum Song (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Flower Drum Song/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk), Ssilvers (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

We are nominating this for featured article because... we believe it meets the criteria. Flower Drum Song, Rodgers and Hammerstein's penultimate Broadway musical, has always been problematical. Hard to produce because it needs a plausibly Asian cast, it came under fire after the civil rights revolution for what was seen by some as an outdated view of Asian-Americans. Rarely produced for forty years after the 1961 film version appeared, the script was entirely rewritten in 2001 for an equally controversial, but more politically correct version which did very well in Los Angeles but did badly on Broadway. Brianboulton has been kind enough to give it an outside review. We should say that the coverage of Rodgers and Hammerstein on wiki is poor, and we hope this will prove an example of how it can be improved. Thanks to Laser Beam for letting this run at this time.Wehwalt (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oppose File:Flower drum 1958.jpg lacks a fair use rationale Fasach Nua (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, it has one. Do you mean it is insufficient?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean it does not have a fair use rationale Fasach Nua (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think he means that the image doesn't have significant meaning in the article to include it. It has the regular rational, but not one that sepcifically explains why the image is needed or what sepcific purpose it serves other than eye candy.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 20:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image is on the 1958 original cast album and was also used by the producers on other publicity materials. It shows an upbeat Chinatown in front of the Golden Gate Bridge, with the figures illustrating various activities of the Chinese-American characters in the show. This helps the reader to understand the story-line of the musical, which depicts such an upbeat San Francisco Chinatown, and the cover art reinforces the setting and period of the musical. So, the image provides visual identification of much that is described in the 1958 plot summary. Would it solve the problem if the image were moved there, or next to he mention of the recording, and/or if we added a sentence to the text to describe how the album cover art reflects the plot and setting of the show? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[moving left]Is there in fact a problem at all? It would be good if User:Fasach Nua would be less cryptic and more helpful. I saw another similar blocking comment from this editor today (here) to which the nominator asked, "is this your usual generic 'no fair use images ever' oppose?" to which User:Fasach Nua answered with the one word "Yes". I don't find this sort of approach colleaguely or helpful. Tim riley (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for clarification on his talk. Right now, I don't consider it an actionable oppose. I want the best for all my articles and will gladly make adjustments in them as necessary, but I'm at something at a loss. In my last FAC, Lincoln cent, Fasach Nua did not oppose, but enquired why I was using a 2010 penny and if I intended to keep it the current year. I explained, but I never heard back from him. I hope he will be more clear.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would just suggest one thing, lower the resolution of the cover to 300x300 pixels, and then it is fine to go. If Fasach Nua doesnot bother to explain properly, I will strike out the oppose. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why that is necessary? I don't happen to own the CD and it would be a considerable inconvenience to obtain a new scan. Surely there are no commercial opportunities for the copyright holder that we are interfering with.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Wehwalt. It is displayed at the same resolution that Amazon.com displays it. In fact, the source is Amazon.com, so it is widely available on the internet at this resolution, and the clarity of the image is not adequate for any commercial use. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear SSilvers, sorry for my late reply. I was afraid that I was late enough that the FAC was closed, but whew! Generally song CD or vinyl covers are used in a max resolution of 300x300, hence that is my reason for asking you to do so. You can reduce the size anytime Wehwalt, you don't need a new scan for it. And has Fasach Nua bothered to explain anything? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support – An excellent article. [ Tim riley (talk) 10:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)] I make no comment on the images (not my area of expertise), but all other FA criteria seem to me to be met. A few minor quibbles, none of which affect my support for the promotion of the article:[reply]

• Passim
  • Is the third associate Fields or Field? You refer to him four times as the former and twice as the latter.

Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead (and repeated later)
  • "back-to-back Broadway flops" – I wonder if "back-to-back" (for "successive") has yet become formal English usage suitable for an encyclopaedia article.

I think this is OK in American usage, and here it is more descriptive of the fact that there are two, whereas I think that successive here usually is used to indicate more than two. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Genesis of the musical
  • "In interviews, however, Hammerstein noted" – odd verb to use: presumably he had already noted the fact and in interviews simply mentioned it.

Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • "central theme – a theme coursing through much 20th-century American literature…" – I think you should attribute this quote in the text; as it stands it implies that Hammerstein is being quoted.

Fixed by removing Hammerstein's name from the sentence. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Casting and tryouts
  • "The team found it challenging" – does that mean difficult?

Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • "and even after he was released from the hospital" – not sure what "even" adds to the meaning here

Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Subsequent productions
  • "a bizarre pastiche of limping mediocracy" – did the critic really write "mediocracy" rather than "mediocrity"? The Oxford English Dictionary defines the former as "Government by the mediocre; a system within which mediocrity is rewarded", which doesn't seem to have much to do with the plot as described in the article.

Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 2002 revival
  • Image caption: Virginia Theatre marqees showing Flower Drum Song – should this be "marquees"?

Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • "the critics mostly panned it" – slightly too informal a phrase for an encyclopaedia, perhaps?

I don't think so. It is very common in American usage. I'd hate to lose it as a descriptive term and instead have to use awkward words like "unfavorable" throughout these musical theatre articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Music and recordings
  • "[Rodgers's] use of repetitive Eastern musical structures" – I thought s-apostrophe-s was the UK, rather than the US, usage; would s-apostrophe be more idiomatic here?

Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• References
  • You vary between "Retrieved" and "accessed" – would it not be preferable to be consistent?

Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley (talk) 10:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support, I'll get on this later today. I will doublecheck the quotes, sometimes these things happen through autocomplete or a misguided correction along the way--Wehwalt (talk) 11:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tim riley, for these helpful comments! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: Consistency required with "accessed" and "retrieved" in the reflist. Otherwise no queried withe the sources. A very modest amount of spotchecks done. Will try a general review later (I can't usually pass up on operas or musicals). Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed -- everything says "Retrieved" now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference comments

• Ref 37: "1 December 2010" goes against your date consistency.

Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 37: The "[London cast]" text messes up the external link thing. Place <nowiki></nowiki> codes around the "[London cast]" text.

Fixed? Please check. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 61: This leads me to some login page.

Fixed now? If not, we should not that it requires registration. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's still not coming up, so I guess just note that. CrowzRSA 02:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, added (now fn 63). -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 83: "Retrieved December 1, 2020", wrong year.

Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 93: "pp. 352–53.." spare period.

Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 100: "30 September 2001" goes against your date consistency.

Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes talkinbroadway.com (ref 83) a reliable source?

Talkin' Broadway is an extensive website founded in 2000 that provides information about Broadway and other NY theatre and theatre in other U.S. cities. In an online Harris Poll conducted by The League of American Theatres and Producers, Inc., Talkin' Broadway was rated the # 1 favorite Website for Broadway information by 64% of those who took the poll. They review every Broadway show. Their chief reviewer is Matthew Murray, who wrote the review cited to. Here is a list of (and links to) over 400 reviews and articles that he has written on the site. Murray also writes for PC Magazine (bio here) and BroadwayStars.com, and here is an archive of articles he has written for them. Murray is a graduate of Western Washington University. He was previously senior editor at Stage Directions, a monthly technical theater trade publication, and and an associate editor at TheaterMania.com. PC World writes that Talkin' Broadway is "one of the best known and most popular Web sites covering the New York theater scene; and [Murray is] an editor, columnist, and critic for BroadwayStars.com, New York’s foremost theater news aggregator".[2] He is also a member of the Theatre World Awards board. The site also includes the very helpful The Cast Album Database. The owners, editors and publishers of the site are John Gillespie, Ann Miner and Michael T. Reynolds

• What makes curtainup.com (ref 84) a reliable source?

CurtainUp.com is an online theater magazine founded in 1996. Its editor and publisher is Elyse Sommer, whose review we are citing. Sommer is a member of the Drama Desk and the Outer Critic's Circle. She graduated from New York University's School of Journalism and became a magazine editor and writer.

• What makes leasalonga.com (ref 101) a reliable source?

Surely the artist biography in the press section of a significant star's website is an acceptable source.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about querying this source in my earlier check. However, since the citation relates only to the fact of Lea Salonga's nomination for a Drama League award, I felt it was OK. No doubt the nomination is verifiable elsewhere if this source is thought doubtful, but I think in the circumstances this is acceptable. Brianboulton (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The 101 Greatest Shows of all Time all should be capitalized.
  

Hi. I'm not sure what you mean by this one. Thanks for the comments! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't really come clear on that one, The "all" in the title (The 101 Greatest Shows of all Time) should be capitalized (I think).

Ah! OK, done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I see right now. CrowzRSA 01:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support All my comments were fixed. CrowzRSA 17:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks good to go to me. The article meets all the criteria for FA status. Jack1956 (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DAB/EL Check - no dabs, no external link problems. --PresN 22:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The article meets the specified guidelines for Musical Theatre articles. Most importantly, the article clearly shows the problems that the creative people (Rodgers and Hammerstein) had with this subject matter, and also clearly shows the differences between the major productions. References are complete.JeanColumbia (talk) 14:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the support. JeanColumbia is one of the most knowledgeable and best editors in the musical theatre area. Three supports, all checks done. Regarding Fasach Nua's oppose, I've stated that I view it as inactionable. I asked for clarification at his talk page, most courteously, I feel I've always gotten along with Fasach Nua. He removed it unanswered. That's his right of course, it's his talk page, but there is no way I can address that oppose without removing the image, and without an explanation, I am reluctant to do so. I ask that if this stands as it is, that the delegate disregard the oppose under the rules.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Excellent article. I have really no issues about this.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: My only hesitation is that the synposis material is poorly organized, but the editors say that this is the standard for musical theater articles, which implicates a broader problem than this article could be expected to resolve. Marc Shepherd (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:MUSICALS indicates that the history section should go before the synopsis, although in some articles, we put the synopsis higher. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure. It is always difficult to decide the optimal place for the synopsis, but in this article, it is even more difficult, because there is a brief plot summary of the Lee novel, then a plot summary of the original 1958 version of the musical, and thirdly a plot summary of the 2002 Hwang version. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: This article is well written and has a great number of sources. I cannot think of one good reason for it not to be a featured article. JDDJS (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: An excellent article - in depth and well sourced. One minor suggestion - I note that the prose section on the 2002 revival mentions that it won no Tonys. However, it was nominated for several important ones including Best Book. Perhaps this info could be added into the prose? In any case, this is a minor quibble and in no way deters from the article. It would be a well-deserved FA. Smatprt (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion. Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: SSilvers and Wehwalt have done a first-class job on improving this article about a lesser known R & H show. It deserves to be an FA. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Disclosure: I did a detailed review of the article on the talkpage; the issues I raised have been properly addressed, and the article has developed significantly since then. I concur with the general plaudits bestowed by other reviewers. As to the "oppose", the opposer has had ample opportunity to clarify the basis for the objection and has not done so. His (?) concern, whatever it is, is shared by no one else and can now, I think, be safely disregarded. Brianboulton (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all. I don't think I've ever had ten supports before. Can I save some for later?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll hoard all of the extras and other users will have to pay you a fortune to get some of them. :P Silverseren^C 21:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - You guys did a brilliant job with the article. Support from me.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 20:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Very nice work. Its very informative, well sourced and written and neutral. Great job--AlastorMoody (talk) 15:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Contribs SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Very nice article. I'd much prefer it if the two plot summaries (1958 and 2002) were sourced to secondary sources, per WP:V, but there doesn't seem to be consensus on that yet. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The WP:MUSICALS Article Structure guidelines (like those of the Opera project, film project, etc.) all permit plot summaries to be written by directly summarizing the published script. Indeed, the closest thing that Wikipedia has to a guideline on this is WP:PLOTSUM#Citations, which warns, "be sure to consult the primary source material to make sure you get it right", noting that relying on secondary works, in this limited context, is more likely to cause inaccuracies. We did, of course, consider the comments of reviewers and other commentators to help us understand what plot points were the most important ones to devote our limited space to. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as well. I read both published scripts personally, and summarized the major plot details in each case.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've already supported, so this isn't an impediment, but have you considered citing the plot details to the published scripts? I've seen that done for other FA plots, and it both improves the article and brings it into line with WP:V. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the PLOTSUM essay is that it, like all other essays, has no actual weight in terms of policy/guideline. It's just someone's opinion, and directly contradicts WP:V. The same goes for the Wikiproject advice. That said, I've already supported; I recognize that people typically ignore WP:V when it comes to plot summaries, so I'm certainly not going to hold it against this fine article. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I consider it a very limited exception. If you notice, we did cite at the end of the 2002 plot, to ninety pages or so of the Hwang book. Since it is not unusual for there to be changes in plot (though rarely this extreme!) I think that WP:PLOTSUM should only be used once in an article. Really, though, with a published script, there is no trouble about verifiability, the book can be easily purchased or a script obtained from the publisher. Back in the day, most plays seem to have had their scripts published as books, a custom which seems to have fallen by the wayside.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thirteen supports. This may be a record. Well, as I can't slide some of them across the table to my other FAC, nickel/archive1 Buffalo nickel, perhaps some of the reviewers will mosey over there if they are interested.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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