Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2012 tour of She Has a Name/archive1


 * 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 not promoted by GrahamColm 19:19, 16 January 2013.

2012 tour of She Has a Name

 * Nominator(s): Neelix (talk) 02:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets all the featured article criteria. I split this article off from the She Has a Name article because the split was recommended by other users in that article's FAC, which I withdrew to be copyedited upon recommendation in that discussion. I learned much from the other FAC discussion and I have implemented that knowledge in improving the 2012 tour of She Has a Name article. Neelix (talk) 02:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what policy or guideline applies here, but why isn't it "She Has A Name tour (2012)"? By the way, if you decide to change the name, please ping Maralia or me to make sure the FAC and all of its pieces end up in the right place.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I have looked through the naming conventions and I believe that the appropriate guidelines are the naming conventions for events. If I understand those guidelines correctly, the title of this article is correct as it stands; none of the examples place the year in parentheses. Please let me know if you interpret the naming conventions differently or if you believe that a different set of naming conventions apply. Neelix (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't find anything at the page that supports this unusual article name (read the info on "when"). Why do you need the 2012-- has there been another tour?  If you need the 2012, what is wrong with She Has a Name Tour of 2012?  Or just She Has a Name tour, dabbing it later if there is another year tour.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The initial run of the play in 2011 might be considered a tour because it included performances in two different cities. What do you object to in the current title? Would you find "She Has a Name 2012 tour" preferable? That way, the title is shorter (removing the "of"). Neelix (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be better (avoids the "of" and avoids starting with a "when" number instead of a "what" event); let's see what others think. Should you decide to move it during the FAC, the FAC pieces, templates, etc have to be fixed.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Review by Nick-D
Oppose Sorry, but while it's clear that a lot of work has gone into this article, I think that it would require substantial editing to meet the FA criteria. In particular, the article seems to be based around an assumption that readers are already highly familiar with the play, the quality of the prose isn't great and it reads like an advertisement for this production and the play. I have the following specific concerns based on reading the lead and first section and randomly selected parts of other sections:
 * The lead doesn't introduce what what the topic of this article is. I had no idea whether this is referring to a single theatrical performance or a series of theatrical performances which toured together.
 * Other parts of the lead assume readers know all about the subject. For instance, the first para includes "As with the initial run in 2011, the 2012 performances were co-produced by Burnt Thicket Theatre and Raise Their Voice and were directed by Stephen Waldschmidt. Carl Kennedy portrayed Jason, Evelyn Chew portrayed Number 18, Glenda Warkentin portrayed Marta, Alysa van Haastert portrayed Ali, and Sienna Howell-Holden portrayed Mama." makes little sense to readers who've never heard of this play and aren't familiar with its characters or the history of previous productions.
 * " Andrew Kooman, the playwright, was glad to have the tour conclude in his hometown of Red Deer, Alberta because the people of Central Alberta were very supportive of the play." - trivia and PR-speak
 * The second paragraph provides way more detail than is appropriate for the lead
 * The third paragraph of the lead reads like an advertisement
 * The first sentence of the 'Preparations' section isn't well phrased, and doesn't really introduce the subject
 * On that subject, this section doesn't provide any background on what the play is, and appears to assume that whoever's reading it is highly familiar with the play
 * Much of the content of the article is quotes from people closely associated with the play commenting how important it is, how terrible conditions are in the developing world, etc. Pretty much all of this material could be removed or summarised, and the net impact of it is to make the article read like promotional material for the play.
 * Much of the other material is trivia. We don't need to know absolutely everything associated with this string of performances (for instance, 'Chew was planning on returning to drama school', 'Chew is fluent in English, so dialect coach Nathan Schmidt trained her to speak in such a way that she would sound as though her first language was something other than English' (isn't this normal for an English-speaker portraying someone who's not fluent?) and 'there was a fundraiser for the tour at Foothills Alliance Church in Calgary, featuring desserts, hors d'oeuvres, an art auction,').
 * "statistics gathered by the federal government of the United States suggest that there are approximately 300000 forced prostitutes in North America between the ages of 10 and 17" - is this actually true? (eg, which US federal government report provides this information?). The number seems horrifyingly high.
 * "Some Americans expressed an interest in staging She Has a Name in the United States as well." - which Americans, and what's the relevance of this to the subject of the article? (the tour of this play through Canada).
 * Watch out for advertisement-speak such as "A Better World (ABW), an organization based in Lacombe, Alberta, partnered with Raise Their Voice throughout the tour"
 * The 'Talkback panels' section could be reduced to a single paragraph: we don't need to know who spoke at each session and what their message was
 * The 'Impact' section actually says almost nothing about the play's impact - most of it is text describing the work of the charity which was involved in the production and outlining what they hoped to spend any money raised through the play on
 * What's the relevance of the first half of the para which begins with "The day that the play opened in Ottawa, MP Joy Smith presented Bill C-10 to the Senate of Canada;" - this section makes no connection between the tour and the bill entering parliament.
 * This section also states that "Smith personally supported the She Has a Name while she was in Ottawa and when the play was performed in Winnipeg where she serves as MP", but the supporting reference states "Member of Parliament Joy Smith is going to be part of the talk back in Winnipeg and Ottawa" which doesn't establish that she 'personnaly supports' the play (eg, 'personally supports' is vague advertising-talk, and 'Smith participated in the talkback sessions in...' is true to what happened - though you need a source which states that she actually was able to make it to these sessions rather than the current one which states that she intended to take part).
 * "Nonetheless, The Chronicle Herald consented that the play was well-rehearsed and ran smoothly." - what 'consented' means here is unclear (I presume you mean 'conceded' - which is rather POV), and if this is the only thing positive they said about the performance it's not worth mentioning.
 * While the coverage of this review in the article summarises it as: "The Chronicle Herald was very critical of the play, blaming Waldschmidt for directing the actors to shout their lines and writing that Chew was the only actor who performed admirably", on my reading the reviewer was mainly focused on what he saw as major problems with the script. He seems to have thought that the actors were generally OK (with Chew being the stand out) and the production standards were good.
 * File:DisciplesCelebrate.jpg probably needs an ORTS release Nick-D (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have introduced the subject in the lead, added more background information and reworded sentences so as to not assume the reader's prior knowledge of the play, removed trivial information and PR-speak, reduced the level of detail in the second paragraph of the lead, made the third paragraph of the lead less advertisement-like, removed quotations from people closely associated with the play, removed the sentence about Americans expressing an interest in staging the play in the United States, shortened the "Talkback panels" section to one paragraph and merged it with the following section, removed the word "Impact", clarified the relationship between Joy Smith and the play, and summarized the Chronicle Herald review better. I hope I have addressed these concerns to your liking; please let me know if I have not. The only two of your concerns that I know that I have not addressed are the concern about the accuracy of the "300000" statistic and the ORTS release for File:DisciplesCelebrate.jpg. I have tracked down a book that states that the report itself is cited in a journal article, and I should be able to find the journal article through my local library; I will try to do so soon and then add the name of the report. As for the ORTS release, how do I go about doing that? The image appears to have been uploaded by someone who claims to be the copyright holder. Neelix (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That was quick! Those changes look good, and I'll post a more full review over coming days (hopefully tomorrow). I might be able to help with checking the journal article BTW (I'm a student at a major university with an excellent online library system) - please let me know if you can't find it. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your offer of help. I have found an article in the UN Chronicle and another in The Christian Century that both state that the United States Department of Health and Human Services report a number of 300000. Unfortunately, neither article names the report. Does the US Department of Health and Human Services name their reports? I have added both the UN Chronicle and The Christian Century sources to the article. A publication by the United Nations should be reputable, but it would be nice to be able to cite the report itself. Do you find the additional sourcing sufficient? If not, any help you can provide in locating the report itself would be greatly appreciated. Also, I know that your offer of help was specific to finding a source for this particular statistic, but if you would be able to help in performing (or locating someone to perform) the copyedit that SandyGeorgia has requested, that would be greatly appreciated as well. Neelix (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The 1995 UN reference seems rather outdated. Googling the figure returns various advocacy websites which claim that this is (variously) the number of prostitutes and/or children at risk in the US or South East Asia but nothing I can find backs this up. It's hardly unknown for well meaning human rights campaigners to use outdated or wrong data I'm afraid. You could ask at WP:GOCE for a copy editor or approach (though I don't think he usually copy edits whole articles). Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Further comments: All up, and I really don't want to come across as harsh considering the large amount of work which has clearly gone into this article, I'd suggest that you consider withdrawing this nomination until it's thoroughly copy edited and trimmed down. Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that I agree with Sandy's comments on prose - many of the paragraphs don't flow well (for instance, the first para of the 'Background' section is about two quite different topics and the sentences don't run together all that well). This makes the article heavy going.
 * While the shorter length helps, I still think that the article is over long - this is about a small scale production which has had no lasting impact, and very few people are going to read through all this detail.
 * The following as some examples of issues with prose and the amount of detail in the article:
 * "Actively opposing human trafficking on a political level" - this doesn't mean much as worded (eg, any citizen can advocate for or against things politically; I think you mean 'government level' or equivalent, and even then its a bit vauge - is Smith a member of the Government and was this a government policy? - and I'm still not seeing any clear connection to this string of performances).
 * "She Has a Name was selected to be performed in this festival by lottery. Of the total 34 spots in the festival, 13 spots were reserved for shows local to Calgary; 30 local shows applied, and She Has a Name was one of the 13 successful applicants." - if the play was accepted on the basis of luck, this could be expressed much more concisely.
 * "Local supporters in Victoria" - this is redundant - people living in Victoria are obviously locals of the area. In general, 'local' can be avoided.
 * "These supporters worked to bring the play to Victoria in order to increase awareness about human trafficking on a local level, bringing attention to cases like that of Stephen Charlie, a man who was charged by the RCMP with forcibly prostituting a sixteen-year-old girl in Victoria and advertising her online." - who were these 'supporters'? (and avoid terms like 'these supporters worked' which are fairly leaden)
 * The reference provided doesn't support much of this BTW (eg, the appeal for $10,000 in donations was still going at the the time and there's no mention of Stephen Charlie.
 * "Opening night in Edmonton coincided with President of the United States Barack Obama's speech about human trafficking to the Clinton Global Initiative." - what's the relevance of this? Was this a deliberate tie-in or pure chance?
 * I think that a spot check of references is also needed.
 * I would be glad to follow whatever course of action you deem most expedient in improving the article to featured status. I have addressed all of the concerns you have mentioned to the best of my ability. Would the trim you suggest be part of the copyedit the article will likely eventually receive through GOCE or are there further points you wish to make before I send the article there? I want the article to be fully prepared for its next FAC. Neelix (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * While hopefully the copy editor will weed out unnecessary material, I'd suggest that you also go through the article paragraph by paragraph and weed out material which isn't directly relevant to the topic of the article or which you judge would be considered too much detail by someone with a keen but not deep interest in the topic (which is essentially the key audience for Wikipedia articles, IMO). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to follow your advice. Have I weeded out the unnecessary material you mention? I have contacted, but he is too busy to copyedit this article. I have therefore listed the article at GOCE, but there is a nearly two-month backlog there. If there is anything that I can do in the meantime, I would greatly appreciate instruction. Neelix (talk) 16:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That helps, but there's still heaps of surplus detail. For instance, I'm still not seeing the connection between this tour and the bill outlawing human trafficking or Barrack Obama's speech and the Victoria News article simply doesn't support the claim that the performance was linked to raising awareness of the Stephen Charlie case. Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Joy Smith visited Ottawa to present the human-trafficking-related Bill C-10 to the Senate; she agreed to speak at a performance of the human-trafficking-related play She Has a Name while she was in Ottawa to present this bill. Obama's human-trafficking-related speech (the first by a United States president) occurred on the same day that She Has a Name opened in Edmonton, and this fact was noted as a significant coincidence by a reviewer. Can you think of a way to make these two connections clearer? I have removed the note about Stephen Charlie. Neelix (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There doesn't actually appear to be a clear connection between the bill's introduction and the play, and there's obviously no connection between Obama's speech and the play other than pure chance so it's not worth including. Nick-D (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed the references to the bill and the speech. Are there any other details you feel should be removed? Neelix (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I really don't want to be unkind, but there's still lots of surplus details, and I'm not going to work through the article and list them. As I suggested above, a good approach would be to systematically go through the article and summarise or remove everything which is unlikely to be of interest to a moderately motivated reader. As some examples to help you: "Brad G Graham served as stage manager", "Programs also included warnings about subject matter and language.[22] These find correlation in the play; the play deals with mature themes[1] and includes profanity." (could be a single short sentence noting that the play contains this stuff and audiences were warned accordingly), "Like Waldschmidt,[27] Wiebe had previously acted as Jesus in Drumheller's Canadian Badlands Passion Play", and the 'reviews' section could be cut back by reducing the use of quotes (also, I'd suggest a more common word than 'approbating'). I hope that's helpful. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have followed your advice and have removed the details you mention in addition to a significant amount of other information from the article. I believe that what remains is not trivial. Have I removed detail to your satisfaction? Neelix (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Those changes look really good (sorry for the slow response BTW). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm glad the changes meet with your approval. Does that mean that you support the nomination or is there something else you wish me to do to improve the article? Neelix (talk) 03:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, the article is now in pretty good shape, and I've struck the above oppose (meaning I now have no objection to the article being promoted) and collapsed the comments related to it. I've undertaken a small amount of copy editing, and have the following further comments, however:
 * "Because there was so much interest in the play in early 2011 that there weren't enough tickets for everyone who wanted to attend the initial run, a second run was planned." - this is a bit wordy
 * "Plans for a cross-Canada tour of the play were realised in May of the following year.[10] It was then that She Has a Name began a fringe theatre tour." - ditto (this could be one sentence)
 * "Kooman directs Raise Their Voice.[13] The 2012 tour of She Has a Name lasted twenty weeks.[14] The tour encompassed approximately 80 performances in total." - these sentences are rather abrupt; the last two could be combined and the first merged in somewhere else
 * "nearly $100000 was fundraised between various private donors" - 'was fundraised' is awkward; how about 'nearly $100,000 was raised from various...' (note the comma in the $100,000 also)
 * "On May 5, there was a fundraiser for the tour at Foothills Alliance Church in Calgary" - bit wordy: how about "A fundraiser was held at the Foothills Alliance Church in Calgary on May 5..."
 * "that he wrote himself and had already performed" - this could be a little bit more concise
 * The links between the performers and church groups and religious plays jumped out at me a bit on re-reading the 'Background' section: does the theatre company have a religious motivation, or are these connections the result of a human rights focus? (I know that not-very religious actors in Australia often perform in religious plays as a way of finding work/experience, so there may not be much of a religious link)
 * "These performances were part of the Calgary Fringe Festival.[10] She Has a Name was selected to be performed in this festival by lottery." - these sentences could be combined
 * "Supporters in Victoria" - still unclear I'm afraid ('supporters' is a totally inexact term) - and "These supporters, a group of people led by Sarahanne Tolsma" is a bit awkward. I'd suggest starting this para with what's currently the second sentence (tweaked a bit) and then have a sentence on how the money needed to perform the play was raised, which would probably get around the problems here.
 * "The Vancouver Fringe Festival hosted the play when it arrived in Vancouver.[34] The Firehall Arts Centre was the location for these performances." - could be combined, and did the festival 'host' the play? (how about something like "The play was performed [not sure if this is the best word] at the Firehall Arts Centre as part of the Vancouver Fringe Festival from X Date to Y Date...")
 * "The final performances of She Has a Name in Red Deer occurred in October.[7] The Scott Block Theatre hosted these performances." - how about something like "The final performances of the tour were conducted at the Scott Block Theatre in Red Dear from X to Y October"?
 * The first para of the 'Talkback panels and fundraising' section is still a big lump of text. You could chop out some of the names, leaving the positions they hold, which would help a bit would probably still be too long.
 * "The purpose of these talkback sessions was to raise awareness about national and international human trafficking." - how about "to raise awareness about the human trafficking which takes place in Canada and in other countries" [or "overseas" if this is an appropriate term for countries outside of Canada]
 * "While She Has a Name toured across Canada to raise awareness about human trafficking, A Better World (ABW), an organization based in Lacombe, Alberta, raised money to help women and children who had as part of the country's prostitution industry." - material noting the fundraising activity associated with the play seems to have gotten lost in the editing
 * The current wording makes it sould like the fund raising was conducted in parallel with the performances; please explain in the article how this all worked (eg, did the charity receive some or all of the revenue from ticket sales or did it raise funds directly from the audience through some other means?) Nick-D (talk) 04:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * done Neelix (talk) 02:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "All five members of Raise Their Voice had previous connections with ABW, and the plan to have the two organizations working in conjunction had been developing since 2011" - could this be moved to the 'background' section where the process of developing the tour is discussed?
 * "Audience reactions to the play as it toured across Canada in 2012 were deeply emotional." - this wording is a little bit awkward
 * "Critical reviews were also strong." - I know what you mean here, but this sounds contradictory. How about "Reviews from theater critics were also generally positive" or similar?
 * What's Bloody Underrated?
 * "The Winnipeg Free Press was uniformly approving in its estimation of Carl Kennedy's performance." - this is a bit vague and awkward
 * "Waldschmidt's directing garnered positive reviews." - this is cited to only a single review
 * "The special effects were also praised" - by whom?
 * "At the Calgary Fringe Festival, She Has a Name was again singled out as more poignant and weighty than the other plays" - by whom?
 * Should the table of ratings also include 'favorable' and 'unfavorable' for the reviewers which didn't use stars? (I'm not sure if this approach is still used)
 * I think that a spot check of references remains necessary Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the thorough independent copyedit. I have made all the changes you recommended. You seemed to question the reliability of the Bloody Underrated source, so I removed it from the article. You asked about adding "favorable" and "unfavorable" to the table of ratings; I would be glad to do so if you think it wise, although I don't know how to determine which reviews should be added because there are so many. You also asked if Burnt Thicket Theatre is a religious organization. I read in one source and then wrote on the main She Has a Name article that Burnt Thicket Theatre "aims to produce new Canadian plays in a way that integrates spirituality and art", but I don't know if the troupe has any particular religious affiliation. I haven't found any declaration of such an affiliation in any of the sources I have found. Have I addressed all of the issues you raised? The only one I can see is the reference spot check, which I assume I cannot do myself. Neelix (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just weighing in re. one of my bete noires, I've always considered labelling unrated reviews as "favorable" or "unfavorable" to be simplistic and a form of original research, so I'd have no problem with leaving that out. OTOH, last time I recall this being discussed at WP:ALBUMS and I raised this, it was overruled so it may still be policy there, don't know about the film or theatre wikiprojects. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My preference would also be against adding the unrated reviews; I agree that the "favorable" and "unfavorable" labels are borderline original research. Still, I am willing to add such entries if there is consensus to do so and there is some objective way to determine which reviews should go in the table. Neelix (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Review by SandyGeorgia
Please locate an independent copyeditor to go over the entire article; fixing this one random paragraph sample will not suffice. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, this article was spun off from and has the same prose problems that were apparent only a few weeks ago when Featured article candidates/She Has a Name/archive1 was archived. Dropping down the page for one random section reveals: "After the Saturday matinée in each city, there was a panel discussion. These 'talkback panels' were open to the audience and anyone else who wanted to attend, and included a question-and-answer period. The talkback panels were chaired by several people including Kooman. The purpose of these panels was to raise awareness about human trafficking on a national level in Canada and also on an international level." These few sentences contain so much convoluted, repetitive and redundant prose, that I wonder if I really need to list it.  But I suppose I must for this oppose to be actionable:
 * 1) The "in each city" is redundant; re-casting the sentence would avoid the redundancy by doing something like:
 * Panel discussions were held after the Saturday matinées.
 * 1) Two consecutive sentences that begin with "The(se) talkback panels", strangely one use in quotes, the other not.
 * 2) The audience and anyone else who wanted to attend?  Anyone else who wanted to attend is an audience!
 * The talkback panels had several chairpersons, including Kooman, were open to the public, and included a question-and-answer period.
 * 1) "on a national level" is redundant:
 * One purpose of these talkback sessions was to raise national and international awareness about human trafficking.
 * I performed an extensive copyedit of this article before submitting it for FAC; I would be glad to do any further copyediting that is required, but I cannot compel someone else to do so, and the Guild of Copy Editors has a substantial backlog. If you are willing to identify the problems you have with the text, I would gladly take all the time that is required to go through each one of them, just as I have done with Nick-D's concerns above. As for the specific concerns you mention, I have addressed them all, but not quite by taking all of your suggestions. The intention of the "audience and anyone else who wanted to attend" is that one did not need to be a member of the audience of the play in order to attend the panel discussion; I have reworded that sentence to make this meaning clearer. Also, it is not the awareness that was both national and international, but rather the human trafficking; I have reworded that sentence for added clarity as well. If you would be willing to identify the other specific concerns you have with the wording of the text (or if you would be willing to perform the independent copyedit you mention), I would be greatly appreciative. Neelix (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nick-D has performed a thorough independent copyedit of the article. Do you have remaining concerns regarding the article's flow, level of detail, etc.? Neelix (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I continue to believe the article is incorrectly named (see discussion at top of this FAC), and will review prose again later. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Second revisit: I went to one section (Talkback panels ... ), where the first thing I encounter is another example of the kinds of prose problems I originally objected to:
 * In several of the cities in which She Has a Name was performed in its 2012 tour, the human trafficking experts who appeared on the talkback panels after the performances included RCMP officers.
 * Why "in which"? Why not "where"?  We already know the article is about the 2012 tour of the play, and this is only an image caption, so why are we repeating so much info? Too many clauses that leave the reader struggling.  Why are we linking human trafficking again?  Why are we making the reader click on RCMP to know what it is?  Would something like this work ??
 * Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers were among the human trafficking experts who appeared in the talkback panels following performances in some cities.
 * No need to take my suggestion literally, but this is an example of the overly convoluted prose that troubles me. My concern about the name of the article reflects similar overuse of clauses ... what is wrong with "She Has a Name 2012 tour"?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I was the one who initially recommended the title "She Has a Name 2012 tour"; you suggested that we wait for input from other users. If there are no objections to the proposed title, I would be grateful for your help in fixing the FAC pieces to facilitate the move. Neelix (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I mentioned this again in the hope others will provide more feedback. Changing a name when an article isn't at FAC is just a move, and the FAC archived pages go with in articlehistory.  Changing a name while an article is at FAC can be tricky, and I'll be glad to help if you ping me when/if others have weighed in.  We don't want to change it twice on the chance someone disagrees or has a better suggestion, and so far, only you and I are opining.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The current title looks OK to me - the alternatives which have been suggested seem unnecessarily terse, and the current name is fairly clear. Nick-D (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

There is still unnecessary wordiness, sample para: Would something like this work, to eliminate wordiness and merge choppy sentences: Next we get into a long list of who's who that results in a long para, why not a paragraph break here? What follows looks like a string of tangential information not that relevant to the article, but I won't object on that basis. The prose still needs work, though. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Panel discussions were held after each of the Saturday matinées during the tour.[44] These discussions were open to anyone who wanted to attend, and not just the play's audience.[45] The discussions were chaired by several people including Kooman.[44]
 * Panel discussions were held after the Saturday matinées during the tour; they were chaired by different individuals including Kooman and were open to anyone—not just the play's audience. The purpose of these talkback sessions was to raise awareness about the human trafficking that takes place in Canada and in other countries.[45]
 * As Einstein's razor states, we should not make things simpler than they can be made. The simplifications you recommend introduce ambiguity and error into the prose. I have taken some of your suggestions, for which I am grateful. Still, the sentences cannot be shortened to the extent you suggest. For example, take the portions you crossed out above: "The purpose of these talkback sessions was to raise awareness about the human trafficking that takes place in Canada and in other countries." Without the "the" and the "that takes place", the sentence suggests that it is the raising awareness rather than the human trafficking that is taking place in Canada and in other countries. Likewise, simplifying "these discussions" to "they" in the previous sentence is grammatically ambiguous; "they" could refer to the matinées. The reworded image caption you recommend could easily be interpreted to mean that human trafficking experts appeared on only some of the talkback panels while others were chaired by non-experts. I would be glad to address any specific concerns you have about the article's prose, but I am not convinced that the article is simply lacking in general, especially after the thorough copyedit that Nick-D performed. Neelix (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you provide a diff of the changes you made, it makes reviewing faster. I had a look and am not satisfied that more can't be done to make the examples I gave less wordy.  More examples, looking at the "Reviews" section to vary things:
 * Audiences reacted with deep emotion as the play toured across Canada in 2012 .[14]
 * Plural (audiences) based on one source.  And that one source is from one source at londoncommunitynews-- is that a reliable source? "Across" is redundant at minimum.  We already know from the title it was 2012, and we already know the tour was in Canada ... is that wordiness necessary?
 * I have altered the sentence as you have recommended, as per this diff. I had previously retained the words "Canada in 2012" because I believed it wise to start sections with topic sentences that reintroduce the topic of the entire article. The plural is of audiences and not of sources; the one source attests to multiple audiences, therefore the plural is valid. The London Community News is a well-established newspaper of the Metroland Media Group; it is reliable. Neelix (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Standing ovations were common.[60]
 * Plural based on one source, what is that source?
 * While the plural does not refer to sources and there is therefore no contradiction, I have added an additional reference for this sentence per this diff. The source you initially asked about is the Red Deer Express, a well-established newspaper of the Black Press; it is reliable. Neelix (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Reviews from theatre critics were also generally positive.[12]
 * Also is redundant. Reviews plural based on one source.
 * While I think the word "also" improves the flow of the sentences, I have removed it per this diff. The Calgary Herald source refers to multiple references being positive, so the plural is valid; nonetheless, I have added additional references to this sentence. Neelix (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The organizers of the festival announced that attendance was up by 23% as compared to the previous year, a fact that the Calgary Herald attributed to the popularity of She Has a Name and the other two plays that were performed with it at the Lantern Church Sanctuary: Loon and The Last Man on Earth.[71]
 * Would something like this work?
 * Festival organizers said attendance was up by 23% from the previous year; the Calgary Herald attributed the increase to ...
 * I have altered the sentence according to your recommendation per this diff. Neelix (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * At the Vancouver Fringe Festival, She Has a Name was again received with standing ovations and then speechless audiences.[72]
 * From a marginally reliable source, and the opinion should be attributed to the writer of that blog if it is to be used.
 * I don't see any call for questioning the reliability of Art Threat. The magazine is published by a recognized non-profit organization that is sponsored by the Canada Council. I have altered the sentence according to your recommendation per this diff. Neelix (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * These are only samples; similar is throughout the article. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would be grateful if you would provide me with the other concerns you have with the article so I can address them. Thank you for your advice thus far. Neelix (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


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