Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/A Very Merry Unauthorized Children's Scientology Pageant


 * 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 20:06, 28 November 2007.

A Very Merry Unauthorized Children&
Self Nominating A Very Merry Unauthorized Children's Scientology Pageant. This article was first featured on Did you know? on February 27, 2007. It was then listed as a Good Article in June, and recently had a Peer Review. I believe I have addressed all of the points to the best of my ability from the Peer Review, where I received some great feedback and helpful suggestions. The article currently cites (35) different sources, and covers the Musical's intitial inspiration, production and development, a plot overview, lists the first few performances and interesting incidents that occurred during them, and goes over responses received in the press regarding both the play and the cast recording. I now submit this article to you as a Featured Article Candidate. Cirt 08:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
 * Support, as nom. Cirt 08:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
 * Comment The reception section is excellent. Should the lede maybe add a qualifier, such as satirical musical or some such?-BillDeanCarter 10:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. What do you mean exactly by qualifier, or how so?  Feel free to do it yourself if you wish.  By the way, thank you for your recent Wikignome edits, I really appreciate them.  Cirt 10:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
 * ✅ - Nevermind, I added the qualifier, per your suggestion. "Satirical" works very nicely.  Thank you.  Cirt 10:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
 * Yeah, that probably works. Some kind of qualifier so that people figure out that its object of satire is Scientology, and not official Scientology doctrine.-BillDeanCarter 10:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you agree that that does it, then great. Thanks again for your help.  Cirt 10:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC).


 * Comment: Any particular reason the tracklisting for the cast recording is hidden in a show/hide box? Also, "See also" shouldn't list links already in the article. There are at least two in there. - Mgm|(talk) 12:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The track listing is formatted that way because of a suggestion from the Peer Review, actually. Which entries are you referring to in the See also section?  I will go ahead and remove them.  Cirt 15:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
 * ✅ - You were correct, I went ahead and removed three duplicate entries from the See also section that I had not noticed on a quick initial look through. Thank you.  Cirt 15:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
 * ✅ - I removed the show/hide box in the Cast recording section, so that the tracklisting is no longer hidden. Cirt 22:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC).
 * Question I noticed that in the section regarding the recording, the AllMusic Guide review mentions the song title as "The Way It Began" (which is the way it is in the source), and the listing mentions the title as "The Way That I Began". Is this a discrepancy?  Did AMG get the title wrong?  Are there recordings with this title?  Was the song rewritten?  My assumption is that AMG got the title wrong, and, if this is true, it should probably be noted with a  [sic] , or something along those lines.  &mdash;   Music  Maker  5376  16:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Fixed it, thank you. Correct title is "The Way That It Began", AMG said incorrectly: The Way It Began", without the "that".  Cirt 21:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC).

Any chance of getting some free images? Raul654 15:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, a good question. I am going to work on that myself, I cannot guarantee it within the next couple days or so, but hopefully/most likely within the next few weeks, yes.  Cirt 17:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC).
 * Update: - I will have one or more free-use images for this article, in the near future. Thanks for the suggestion. Cirt 04:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Per 's suggestion, I replaced two fair-use images in the article with two free-use images from Wikimedia Commons. DiffCirt 16:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC).
 * Also, removed a third fair use image, so now there is one fair use image (the CD cover), and two free-use images from Wikimedia Commons. Cirt 17:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC).


 * Comments:
 * The plot synopsis contains a lot of information that does not belong in the plot synopsis, but rather belongs elsewhere in the description of the play. The plot should be described act by act, to give a chronological summary of what happens during the musical.
 * The "Production" section is mostly History or Background and should be titled as such.
 * The list of historical productions needs headings so that it is easy to separate one major production from another. There is little or no musical and textual analysis.
 * Each reference should be examined to see if you have really mined the information in it. Some good quotes from the best sources would be helpful.
 * Please see: WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure. This is a good article, but I think you have more work to do here before this is a FA-quality article.  Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these suggestions! I will address them and note each point as I try to best address your comments.  Cirt (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC).
 * ✅ - Addressed one point from above, changed a section heading from Production to Background. Cirt (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC).
 * ✅ - Moved some info out of plot section, into background section. Thank you, this was a good idea.  Cirt (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC).
 * ✅ - Added headings of year-ranges into productions section. Cirt (talk) 14:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC).
 * ✅ - I checked - there is only one act in the play, so the plot section cannot go act-by-act, it can only describe the one act. And the plot section is organized in a chronological fashion.  Cirt (talk) 04:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC).
 * ✅ - left some good suggestions about the plot summary section on the article's talk page.  I incorporated some of those points to expand that section, and add a little more information from some of the songs in the play as well.  Cirt (talk) 10:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC).
 * ✅ - Expanded the plot summary section more. Added some more information on the music/songs used.  Looked through the sources used in the plot section, and added some more quotes from the best sources.  (All as per suggestions from above.)  Cirt (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC).
 * ✅ - Moved some info to create a Musical analysis section, as suggested by . Cirt (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC).
 * ✅ - Expanded the Background, Plot summary, and new Musical analysis sections a bit more, with more info from existing sources. Removed some passive voice syntax from the Plot summary section.  Removed some wording from the lede, to prune it down a small bit.  (As per FAC reviewer suggestions.)  Cirt (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC).


 * Comment: - I just wanted to take a moment to acknowledge and the other FAC reviewers on this page, and thank you for providing your feedback.  I don't think I got a chance to do this at the last article I successfully got through FAC - I was probably too busy (or perhaps too frustrated) while implementing changes and suggestions from everyone who commented on the FAC page.  No matter what becomes of this particular FAC - the article itself looks much, much better because of all of your suggestions.  Thank you.  Cirt (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC).


 * Support - You have worked hard to implement changes suggested here, at the article's talk page and on your talk page, and I agree that the article is much improved. I can support the advancement of this article now.  I think a bit more could be done to clarify the prose, especially regarding how the songs in the show relate to the songs on the cast album, and whether the songs in the 2003 version are different from those in the 2006 version.  Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Of course, as I find more information in other sources, I will continue to add to the article.  I will certainly keep in mind the suggestions you have already made, and this new point about potential differences between the songs in the various productions is another good one.  Thanks again for all of your help.  Cirt (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC).
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.