Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/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 Maralia 04:22, 29 November 2012.

She Has a Name

 * Nominator(s): Neelix (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I have checked it against the FA criteria both by visually scanning the article and by using the featured article toolbox, and I believe that this article meets the criteria. Neelix (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Drive-by comment -- Many of the paragraphs are very large. I would recommend you split them up for readability.  Ruby  2010/  2013  03:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have split up all of the largest paragraphs. I can split the paragraphs further if need be. Neelix (talk) 03:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment Ignoring footnotes and references, this article (11677 words) is longer than fellow-FAC Mitt Romney (11380 words). Using WordCountTool.com—indopug (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Is that too long? If so, should part of the article be split off into a new article? I could create a subarticle about the 2012 tour. Neelix (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. Incredible attention to detail. Very thorough. Meticulous sourcing throughout. Excellent structure with attention to flow and ease of readability for the visitor or editor. I would suggest cutting down the size of the lede/intro a bit, and also taking up the idea started above to split out some portions of the article into daughter articles with summary style (obviously keeping the sources) back at the main article. Other than that, wonderful efforts, extremely admirable. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the encouragement! I have reduced the size of the lead and have split off the information about the 2012 tour here. Neelix (talk) 03:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks much better. I would suggest linking back to the parent article, from the daughter article. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm glad the split positively affected the main article. I have placed staggered links to She Has a Name throughout 2012 tour of She Has a Name. Neelix (talk) 02:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Driveby Please see WP:Overlink There appear to be about 100 duplicated links in the body of the article, excluding the lead, infoboxes, tables, image captions and footnotes, far more than I am prepared to list, and a clear breach of MoS.  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  18:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I would be glad to remove duplicate links from the body of the article, but I am not sure where they are. Indopug has already gone through the article and reduced the number of such links. I am under the impression that a link is allowed to appear multiple times throughout an article so long as there is enough space between them for there to be only one link to a particular article on the screen at any given point. Have I misunderstood what constitutes overlinking? Neelix (talk) 02:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not what the overlink section says, and there are sometimes multiple links in the same section, I'll post the script on your talk page  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing me with an overlinking-reduction script. I have used it and have removed all of the links that it highlighted. Neelix (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll try to do a proper review, but I've a busy few days coming up since people keep sending me unsolicited work to do, so it may be some time  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  07:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Remove more links.  Premiere, Backstory, educate Canadians, raise awareness, Canadian lawyer.  That's just in the lead.  The same links are repeated throughout the article (which I've only glanced at).  Also, the use of multiple references interspersed within a single sentence makes the text jarring. I'm surprised at the density of references within some of the passages, for example why aren't primary sources (the play itself) used within the plot summary? - hahnch e n 03:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed all the links to the articles you mentioned, both in the lead and throughout the body of the article. The play itself is not used as a reference within the plot summary because the script has not been published; there are no primary sources for this article. I am not sure what to do about the multiple references used in certain sentences. I thought the density of references was a good thing, and I would be loathe to obscure the sourcing. What would you recommend? Neelix (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There are a few places where the same source is used multiple times in a row, just keep the last one. I'm also convinced that there are multiple places where you could have just used one source which covers the statement in its entirety, rather than splitting it up across multiple sources.  "The premiere of She Has a Name was produced by Burnt Thicket Theatre, in partnership with Raise Their Voice, a creative, justice-driven, nonprofit organization in Red Deer." - Did you really require 4 different sources for that sentence?  "Creative, justice-driven" seems weaselly.  You can also move more of the references to the end of the sentence. - hahnch e n 16:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed the words "creative, justice-driven" and have reduced the number of citations in that sentence to two. I have also removed all of the citations that were included multiple times in a row. I am concerned that moving references to the end of a sentence will obscure which part of the sentence is sourced by which citation. Are there citations that I have not moved or removed that you believe should be? Neelix (talk) 01:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Image review
 * Don't need to italicize cast names in captions
 * A few of the captions could use editing for grammar and flow
 * Licensing is okay (though I don't have OTRS access). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have unitalicized the cast names and have corrected all the grammar and flow problems that I have been able to find in the captions. Please let me know if there are other such problems that I have not yet located. Neelix (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments:
 * The "Plot summary", at 1700+ words, looks rather too long and overdetailed. I think you should look carefully at WP:PLOTSUM, in particular the stricture: "Do not attempt to recreate the emotional impact of the work through the plot summary". You should also look at the section entitled "What to cut". The first paragraph of your "plot summary" is more a discussion of the principal characters than part of a summary of the plot.
 * I have a few sources queries
 * Ref 21 http://www.100huntley.com/video?id=6VFfblaYp-k : There are 11 citations to this source, but it is unclear what is being cited here, as the source has very little text. Is it the video clip? If so, this needs to be made clear. You have used the cite journal template, which adds to the confusion.
 * Ref 45: The article text says: "The office of Joy Smith, Member of Parliament (MP) for Kildonan—St. Paul, released a statement endorsing She Has a Name and advertising the premiere" and cites this to http://hopeforthesold.com/she-has-a-name-a-play-about-human-trafficking/. What the source says is: "MP Joy Smith’s office just sent out an email with information about She Has a Name, a play about human trafficking". No mention of an endorsement.
 * I am a bit concerned that some of the sources may not pas the reliability test. Could you comment on the following:
 * Ref 13 Theatre in London
 * Ref 15 The Rusty Caravan
 * Ref 23 Gig City
 * Ref 20 et al Eye See Media
 * Ref 55 The Visitorium

Brianboulton (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have split the first paragraph of the "Plot summary" section off into a "Characters" section. I have also shortened the "Plot summary" section by removing statements evoking the emotional impact of the work. You are correct in asserting that the 100 Huntley Street source is a video clip; I have acted on your suggestion to recognize the source as such by using the "Cite video" template rather than the "Cite journal template". I have also reworded the sentence involving the office of Joy Smith to avoid suggesting that the office endorsed the premiere. I have reviewed your list of potentially unreliable sources and have removed all instances of those sources from the article, sometimes replacing them with other sources and sometimes simply removing the associated content. Thank you for doing so thorough a review of the article! Neelix (talk) 02:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Good responses, but I think the plot summary could do with a little further work. There is repetitious prose: for example, the sentence "After spending a few months in one city, she would be moved to another to be prostituted there" more or less repeats what has been said in the previous sentence. I don't think you have removed all the "emotive" stuff (see, for example, the second paragraph). There is also production-related information, e.g. how the Skype conversations are presented. The statement that "the drama has a fast pace" is an opinion on the plot, not a part of it; likewise "the play ends in tragedy", etc. I think you have somewhat mixed the story itself with critical comments on the story. I would also like to know what a "john" is, as used in your text; informal language should be in quotes, and explained. There is no such word as "moreso"; I take it you mean "more so". Brianboulton (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I have further shortened the plot summary as you have recommended; I have removed the repetitious prose you indicated, and have moved all the indicated portions of that section to more appropriate locations. I have reworded the article so as to avoid using the term "john". I have also fixed the spelling of "more so". Please let me know if you deem any further shortening of the "Plot summary" section necessary. Neelix (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Reflinks
 * Found by BullGuard internet security program to be unsafe:
 * http://www.strathmorestandard.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2926487&archive=true
 * http://www.strathmorestandard.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2989197&archive=true
 * Dead:
 * http://www.joysmith.ca/main.asp?fxoid=FXMenu,3&cat_ID=27&sub_ID=106&sub2_ID=40


 * Please consider replacements. Soerfm (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed the Strathmore Standard links; they are unnecessary as that newspaper is also in print form. I have also repaired the link rot for the Joy Smith link by adding a link to an archive of the page. Neelix (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Refs and content - I too am experiencing several inconsistencies with the sources. Many lack accessdate - 7, 21, 30, 31. Also, there seems to be a lot of over/under-linking in the references in regards to the works cited.
 * I also want to mirror above concerns over the sheer size of some of the sections; they come off as excessive and overly-detailed. The lead and review sections really need trimming.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   07:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have further shortened the lead section; please let me know if you believe it needs further trimming. What inconsistencies are you experiencing with the sources? I don't believe anyone has mentioned any such inconsistencies thus far in the discussion. The references you mention (7, 21, 30, and 31) are all off-line sources and therefore cannot have accessdate. What do you feel is overlinked or underlinked in the references? I was under the impression that references are like entries in sortable lists in that every instance of a term should be linked if that term is to be linked at all, but I will gladly remove the repeated links in the sources if I am mistaken on this point. You are the first user to suggest that the level of detail in the article is a bad thing; Cirt found the level of detail a very positive quality. For this reason, I am hesitant to remove valid, sourced information from the article. If there is concensus that the high level of detail is a bad quality rather than a good quality, I would be glad to reduce the level of detail. Neelix (talk) 14:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, I could split off the reception information into a subarticle. Would you find that an agreeable solution? Neelix (talk) 16:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It has been a few days without any movement in this discussion, so I have followed Cirt's suggestion above to create multiple daughter articles. There are now two daughter articles: 2012 tour of She Has a Name and Critical response to She Has a Name. I hope the additional split addresses your concerns regarding detail. Please let me know if they do not; I would be glad to split off another daughter article if that is deemed useful, and I would be glad to pursue other courses of action if there is concensus to do so. Neelix (talk) 21:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello again. I still find some of the section too overly-detailed: You focus so much information on background info that can be shortened. I mean, the first paragraph of the "Background" section could be easily cut in half.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   05:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have moved half of the information in the first paragraph of the "Background" section to the Andrew Kooman article. I have also removed other background information about the people involved with productions of the play, moving the information to their articles. I hope I have removed excess detail to your satisfaction. Please let me know if there is more information you believe should be moved to other articles. Neelix (talk) 03:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

There are additionally misplaced commas throughout, and redundancies (sample: After starting to write this play, Kooman read about the Ranong human-trafficking incident in a Canadian newspaper,[6] and also heard about it through a friend of his who was working at an aftercare centre in Bangkok,) ... of his is not needed, and this is a sample of what we encounter throughout ... awkward sentence structure of clause upon clause upon clause. I also suggest someone look closely at the sourcing (based on a recent DYK I reviewed by the same editor).
 * Oppose, there are prose issues throughout, and polish is needed.  There is too much detail in the lead.  Many of the prose issues amount to unnecessary verbosity and overly complex phrases and run-on sentences.  Sample from the lead:
 * The play was inspired by the Ranong human-trafficking incident in which 121 people were trafficked from Burma into Thailand and left in a water tank, which was then abandoned by its drivers, only to be discovered after 54 of the people in the container had died.
 * How about something along the lines of:
 * The play was inspired by the deaths of 54 people in the Ranong human-trafficking incident.
 * Kooman had previously written other pieces of literature that had been published, such as the young-adult novel Ten Silver Coins: The Drylings of Acchora, but this was his first full-length play.
 * This is the lead-- too much detail. HOw about something similar to:
 * Kooman had previously published literature, but this was his first full-length play.
 * She Has a Name makes use of five actors portraying a total of ten different characters.
 * A total of is almost always redundant, how about something like:
 * In the play, five actors portray ten characters.

The prose is dense, verbose and unwieldy throughout; these are only samples. I suggest locating an independent copyeditor, and withdrawing the article for now. The best chance at success will be a new FAC after a thorough copyedit: I think the article needs to be rewritten because the prose is so rough to get through. I haven't looked at anything else. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have simplified the lead as you suggested and have removed the misplaced commas throughout the article. I would be glad to follow your further advice to withdraw the article for now and to locate an independent copyeditor. How do I go about the withdrawal? I would also appreciate any help or advice you can offer in locating an independent copyeditor. Neelix (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


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