- 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 GrahamColm 10:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]
South Pacific (musical) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Nominator(s): Ssilvers (talk · contribs), Wehwalt (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are nominating this for featured article because… we believe it meets the criteria. South Pacific was a musical which was a cultural phenomenon in its time. It ran for years, and both was a reflection of its time and helped to change them, because it also made a strong, intentional point against racism. Perhaps Rodgers and Hammerstein, and the latter's co-writer, Joshua Logan, had more to say in this musical than they did at any other time. Its songs have become classic; the original cast album was the best-selling album to be released in the 1940s. Wehwalt (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to point out that this article concerns one of the most important American musicals, and it continues the series of articles on Rodgers and Hammerstein musicals that Wehwalt and his collaborators have brought to FAC. If you want to compare the structure of the article to some of our other FAs, I would suggest The King and I, Carousel and Flower Drum Song. Looking forward to the comments! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I took part in the peer review, where my comments and questions were thoroughly dealt with. The text of this article meets all the FA criteria, in my view (I am not competent to comment on images). It is thorough but not overlong, the prose is pleasing to read, the structure is logical and well proportioned, and the referencing is comprehensive and from a good range of sources. It has been no hardship whatever to read the article a third time before commenting here – a pleasure, in fact. Congratulations to the nominators on a fine piece of work. – Tim riley (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your work on this, and for your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I am also a traveller from the PR, where I found it difficult to find much wrong with the article as it stood then. My few concerns were all covered nicely and the reviews and edits that took place subsequently have only improved the article. An excellent and high-quality work: well done to all concerned. - SchroCat (talk) 09:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you also for your thoughtful comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image and source review
- File:Juanita Hall in South Pacific.jpg is licensed as "a work of the United States Federal Government". How come?
- Plainly it's not. There's a specific tag for that on Commons but this hasn't been moved over there yet. But I'm never been thrilled with that image because it is a bit out of character in my view so I've moved in another one of Hall from that programme. -- [Wehwalt]
- Audio and video album covers. Both of these are under fair use rationales. The audio cover is of some historical interest because it features the original cast, but the case for showing the latter seems weaker (video of a 2005 concert performance), and I wonder if this image is really justified?
- Does Ssilvers have thoughts on that? Fair use justification is not my strong suit.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- NFCC#8 asks if the image adds significantly to the reader's understanding. The concert DVD was significant in revitalizing the reputation of this score, and the image shows the three stars, Alec Baldwin, Reba McEntire and Brian Stokes Mitchell, a grouping that is unlikely ever to be repeated in any work of art, in any medium. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No other image queries. Sources issues:
- Ref 5: bibliography does not list a Michener 1947 (see also 136)
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 97: goes to irrelevant page (advert for Richard II)
- Irrelevant king. Anyhoo, replaced that one.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Refs 107 and 106: dates and page nos should not be italicized
- Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 108: link goes to 2013 Tony nominations
- 118, rather. Replaced with two sources, so that increases your numbers below by one.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 119: no mention of South Pacific on the linked source page. I think Ref 120 is to the same source so same comment applies
- The plague on these pages! New ones substituted.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 157 shows: "The article you have requested has either been moved or deleted."
- Replaced with another hopefully longer-lived URL. I must learn how to webarchive.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Bibliography: no cites to Bloom and Vlastnik
- Moved Bloom and Vlastnik to "Further reading". -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, all sources look of appropriate quality and reliability. My general comments on the article will follow shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's all. Thank you for your review and comments on this end of things, and in advance on the remainder.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for these; looking forward to the general comments! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I was a significant contributor to the peer review, where my issues were discussed and resolved. I have just completed a full re-reading, and I can't see anything that I would change. I have never seen the stage show; I saw the 1958 film about 20 years after its first issue. Rogers and Hammerstein musicals always seemed to have a hard edge beneath the frolics, and South Pacific is no exception, though by the time I saw the film the presentation of the race theme no longer seemed controversial. I can imagine how different this situation was in the segregated forties. This article is top-notch stuff, and in giving it the thumbs up I look forward with hope to seeing Oklahoma! here before long. Brianboulton (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your helpful critique and for your excellent comments at PR! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks good to me, congratulations...Modernist (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Delegates: I noticed the delegate passed this article by last time through. I'm not trying to rush a promotion, I genuinely don't care, but if you're looking for something we can supply, let us know and we'll do our darndest.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you talking to me? I'm not looking for anything that you can supply; I assure you - I just issued my support for the article...Modernist (talk) 00:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, no. I was combining a thank you to you with a request to the delegates. I should have separated them, I guess. Sorry.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done that now.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a great play and a great article...Modernist (talk) 00:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree on the first and appreciate it on the second.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.