User talk:Jennifer.Marie.Hoff

Welcome!

 * }

Possibilities for your title - Contraband (performance group).
Hello. I noticed the discussion that you initiated at the village pump, which seems to be old now, so I thought I'd offer my take here. It seemed to me that the concerns and caveats you were offering were fairly subject-specific and difficult to appreciate outside of that area--what, exactly, is meant by "performance" in this context, for example. Performance art doesn't really cover it, as defined by that article in its present state. And I understand your reluctance to disambiguate as "dance". I would want to discourage "performance troupe"--unless the group actually identified itself using this term, I'd avoid it. That's probably a matter of personal taste, but it carries undesirable connotations in my mind. I would strongly discourage you from using a "&" or "/"--it's the kind of thing that always gets changed by other editors; it'd probably end up back in "(dance)" or "(company)". I suggest that you might consider basing your disambiguation on the way in which other groups with a similar range of modes are described in their articles. You'll have a clearer idea about this than me, but the discussion at the pump made me think of Goat Island (performance group), who were both a "dance" and "performance" ensemble. For my money, "performance" is broader, and tends to refer to work that ignores the traditional disciplinary distinctions. Although the term "theatre" does strictly speaking refer to the broad range of activities, in practice it means staged drama.

I've had a quick scan through your draft and it's looking good. There are a couple of Wikipedia stylistic points that I'd like to offer for your consideration. Again, these are my own personal preferences, and both what you have and what I'm recommending adhere to the guidelines.

Establishing notability here can be tricky for performance companies. Having been reviewed in newpapers is something that just about every theatre company can manage, and doesn't necessarily imply that they are notable. It is highly desirable therefore to have something more than this. Even if it is only a mention in passing, something in a academic journal article or book will really help to establish notability. Yes, there are lots of articles that don't have this, but they tend to get deleted eventually (there are only a limited number of people checking these things).

Remember to add any relevant Categories to the bottom of the page. The Goat Island article might be a good place to start. Search through the category trees to find others that might be relevant to your article. It can be a good way that people who don't know about the company will find it.

Try to avoid creating an "orphan" article (one to which no other articles link). Spend a little time searching through the existing articles to find broader subject articles into which you might insert a mention of the company with a link to this article. These mentions, though, do still have to be supported by a citation, of course.

Try to avoid creating lists in the article. Lists are fine and good for productions, but "Common themes" should be integrated into a paragraph.

I notice that you've had problems with uploading a suitable image. It's all about copyright. I read in your message to the deleter that you were given a slide of the image specifically for use here. In which case, the best course of action would be to get that person to upload it him/herself into the Commons and make it public domain. Of course, they have to be willing to relinquish their rights over that one picture. But that will ensure that it can be used here. Photographs of performances are VERY difficult to use here otherwise. And it does have to be him/her, since they hold the copyright. It's much more complicated for you to upload it. I would recommend pitching the proposal as a charitable donation.

As a reader of Wikipedia articles, I find the excessive number of footnotes in some articles really distracting. I would suggest that, like the Hamlet article, it is far better to gather all of the citations for a single sentence together at the end of the sentence, and that they are given as one footnote. So, rather than this: Contraband often developed site-specific work. You would have this: Contraband often developed site-specific work.

Again, like the Hamlet article, I also recommend the MLA author-date system for the citations. This is particularly useful for articles that may expand in the future into larger ones, or which draw on the same sources again and again. If I include parenthetical information in the footnotes, then I call the section at the bottom of the article "Notes"; if they only contain citation information, then I call it "References". The citations, then, are given in the format: Hoff (2011, 151). Then, in another section below that, which I usually call "Sources", all of the bibliographic information is gathered together (and, hence, only mentioned once, leaving a significantly less cluttered article). The Hamlet article demonstrates this system in action.

So you get (using three "=" instead of two in this example, because it's on your talk page):

Contraband were a dance and performance ensemble active in the Bay Area of San Francisco from 1974 to 1995.