Talk:The Pirate Queen

Comments
While the article is well written--especially in comparison to the dreadful Miss Saigon article--it reads more like an ad for the show than an encyclopedia article. Why is there no mention of the bad reviews in Chicago, or the fact that Maltby wrote a 20 page memo to Alain Boublil & Claude-Michel Schönberg after watching it as an audience member, so troubled was he at what he saw? There should also be a section about the reaction of critics after it's New York opening, audience reaction and the possibility of its closing early. There was a great NYTimes article a few weeks ago about all of this. Look it up. 87.210.41.124 14:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The article published in the New York POST sugggesting that PQ would close early has been confirmed false by fan contact with production/creative staff. Also, no one has been able to perform the extensive necessary revisions to include critical response.  And audience response?  It's the same as for any other show: mixed.  At scarce least, it's very difficult to gauge audience response without a longer period of ticket sales.  If the show keeps selling, audience response was obviously pretty positive.  Yes, the show has gotten a lot of negative press, but adding extensive details on all of it will read like a criticism of the show, which we don't want either.  While we're at it, why don't we add quotes from the negative reviews of "Wicked" to its page?  There's a review in The London Times that we could get a lot of good stuff from...  Okay, I've stepped far enough over the line, but you see my point.


 * I just reread the article and don't feel that it steps over the bounds of merely stating facts to read like an ad. RECblue8 21:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The anonymous user is correct. See WP:NPOV, which says that "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." Thus, a summary of the critics' assessments is appropriate and must be accompanied by references to WP:RS. The musicals project (WP:MUSICALS) also has article structure guidelines that call for including a Critical response section. Such a section has now been added, along with a section about awards earned, and comments about the huge loss of money experienced by the musicals. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The article may be "well-written" because much of it is taken verbatim from the liner notes to the CD! The plot summary is still very good and useful, but shouldn't the source be noted and credited? BruceJohnson (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:PirateLogo.jpg
Image:PirateLogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fickle WP Editors
Everyone was all excited about this article in 2006. Once the show opened on B'way, it looks like no one has wanted to tell the sad story. LOL! Let's finish what we've started. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As requested, added a section on Critical response, which includes the estimated amount lost. Also included a separate section for Awards/nominations. I could not find, although I looked, the Variety critics tally (it's called something like critics roundup ??.)JeanColumbia (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that about does it. Super job, as usual, Jean! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

More anti-English propaganda
Same old, same old narrow world view from the left-liberal creative classes. They never write musicals about Roman/Viking/Norman/Scottish invasions of English, or the brutality and backwardness of Irish tribal life (that's not an anti-Irish comment, all tribal life is brutal and backward (especially by modern left-liberal standards, but that's an inconvenient reality that can't be incorporated into a left-liberal worldview, so it ignored)). The composers of this joke would have absolutely loathed 17th century Irish society, for a start, it would have executed the two of them for buggery! But still they prefer to spew all their bile on the English. Piccadilly (talk) 13:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes Picadilly: it's called "history", not anti-english propaganda. Trying to hide the truth can not last forever. And that seems to bother you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.108.80.58 (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Amateur production section
Seems like a fair article until we get to the "amateur production" paragraph which is suddenly overwhelmingly positive (and unreferenced). From the history I see that this paragraph has been removed more than once before, since amateur productions should not be in the article, but it has snuck back in. Please could we get rid of this ugly self-promotion? Kimelea (talk) 03:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Done (some time ago) ~ Kimelea (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)