Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Carousel (musical)/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 promoted by Laser brain 02:56, 24 January 2011.

Carousel (musical)

 * Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk), JeanColumbia (talk) 05:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria (it's passed GA and been worked over extensively by someone other than the conoms). Carousel may be the most beautiful musical ever written; we will not disagree with Time magazine, naming it the best of the century. We're talking about a musical which had such songs in it as "If I Loved You", "June is Bustin' Out All Over", and the R&H song which has perhaps had the greatest single impact, "You'll Never Walk Alone". Enjoy. Curtain up. Wehwalt (talk) 05:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

What is the basis for the claim "The image cannot be replaced by a free image, since all cover art for all of the musical's albums are copyrighted." on File:Carousel_1945_Bdwy.jpg Fasach Nua (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, they are, aren't they? Certainly the main productions.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The R&H organization has not let any copyrights on the show lapse, as far as I know; they license the show, and all album art, poster art, programme covers, promotional photos, etc. will continue to be copyrighted for many more years. So, there are no free equivalents.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, even in their lifetimes, R&H were very good at making sure they got both sides of a dime, and their heirs seem to have kept that up very well indeed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. -- Pres N  22:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Images:
 * File:Carousel 1945 Bdwy.jpg Resolution is too high (300x300 recommended). Please format the rationale into Album cover fur or Non-free use rationale to ensure all elements of WP:NFCC are addressed.
 * File:Shankly Gates.jpg - the author is listed as "Andy Nugent", but the file was uploaded by someone else at Commons, who gave it a "self" license. A Flickr source is given for the photo which contains a non-commercial license. Please straighten out licensing issues (you might have to get an admin to look at the original deleted file). I'll fix this myself.  Kelly  hi! 20:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Otherwise looks good, I fixed some minor issues. Kelly  hi! 20:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Another editor has reduced the size of the image.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Support: A classy article about a classy musical. I raised numerous points in sandbox discussions with the first-named nominator, and these were all satisfactorily resolved. As I come from Liverpool, I am familiar with at least one of the songs, though it was generally sung there as a repetitive chant: "Walk on, walk on, with hope in your hearts, and you'll never walk alone, you'll NE....VER... walk alooooone..." ad infinitum. Brianboulton (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Out of curiosity, do people in Liverpool know where it came from, or do they simply think it was invented by the football club (I was at Anfield once, but don't remember whether or not they sang it, I was sitting in the opposing section so it could have been drowned out).--Wehwalt (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the fans certainly treat it as a football chant, with no words other than those given above, but I've not discussed the issue with them. The film of Carousel has of course been shown in Liverpool many times, so I reckon most people are aware the song wasn't composed by Bill Shankly. (I left Liverpool a long time ago) Brianboulton (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Support: Declaration of interest: I reviewed and promoted the article to GA a few weeks ago. It seemed to me FA quality then, and seems so still more now. I express no view on the images, about which I defer to the specialists, but on all other FAC criteria the article seems to me to qualify fully. It is well-balanced, well-referenced, and a pleasure to read, even to one like me who rather dislikes the show. (On the point in the immediately preceding entry, even my diehard and genetically-programmed adherence to Everton F.C. cannot overcome my admiration for this article, and I believe that "You'll Never Walk Alone" was taken up by that shower from the other side of Stanley Park almost by accident – there was, if I recall aright, a whole series of hits by Gerry Marsden of Gerry and the Pacemakers, performed at Anfield in the 1960s, but it was YNWA that somehow stuck. Enough!) Tim riley (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Support: Disclaimer - I have reviewed this article many times and copy-edited it twice; I have also made numerous editorial suggestions and various other edits. I think the nominators have done an excellent job of researching, expanding and improving this article, and they have responded thoroughly to my many comments, questions and suggestions. I believe that the article satisfies the FA criteria and support its promotion. I would also note that Carousel is the most important musical nominated to date for FA consideration - arguably one of the most important musicals ever written, and I thank the nominators for taking the initiative to expand, improve and ultimately bring it up for FAC. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources review
 * No citations to Bloom, Ken and Vlastnik, Frank. Broadway Musicals: The 101 Greatest Shows of All Time.
 * Ref 44. Why not treat Easton, Carol. No Intermission: The Life of Agnes DeMille in the same way as the other books with multiple references?
 * Likewise ref 52, perhaps 56, 94, 106
 * Ref 54: Link should be on title
 * Ref 91: What makes http://www.musicals101.com/cdcomps2.htm a high quality reliable source?
 * This is an update to the explanation I gave in response to the same question at the Noel Coward FAC:
 * John Kenrick, its author and curator, is a well-known, well-published theatre historian. He founded the site in 1996 and built it gradually over the next dozen years.  At the WP musical theatre project, we cite to this extensive and excellent website frequently.  Hundreds of libraries, universities and arts sites link to musicals101.  Kenrick teaches musical theatre history at New York University's Steinhardt School.  BroadwayWorld/com calls him an "Internationally recognized musical theatre and film authority" and mentions his "acclaimed" York Theatre Company lecture series here.  His publications include the books The Complete Idiot's Guide to Amateur Theatricals (2006), and Musical Theatre: A History (2008).  His article "Theatre in New York: A Brief History" appears in the textbook Theatre Law: Cases and Materials (Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2004).  Here is a NY Daily News article citing Kenrick as an authority.  Kenrick has appeared in several documentaries about musicals.  See also his rather extensive bio at Amazon.com, which states that musicals101.com received (in 2007, at the time Amazon published that bio) 15,000 visits per month.  Kenrick is also lecturing on musical theatre, including R&H, at Philadelphia University of the Arts, Brind School.  See also these reactions to the site.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ref 99 requires login/subscription

Otherwise sources all look good. Limited spotchecking reveals no problems. Brianboulton (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * While I know people differ on this one, my feeling is that references that are only use minimally do not need to be in the bibliography. I've shifted the Easton book there, as the reference is used five times, but as the others are used only once (in one case twice, but in consecutive sentences), I feel they do not need to be in the bibiliography, as they are being relied on minimally, and putting them in the biblio might be deceiving the reader, who might expect a lot of info about Carousel in there if they were to obtain the book.  Regarding Ref 91, the reviewer is very well known, but I have asked Ssilvers, who is more familiar with it, to reply, if not, I'll speak more to the issue.  All others are done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Assuming that Ssilver's kind answer satisfied Brian, I see three supports and no opposes, with all checks done. "Walk on, walk on ..."--Wehwalt (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. You can still have hope in your heart. Brianboulton (talk) 09:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


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