Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/She Has a Name/archive2


 * 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 10:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC).

She Has a Name

 * Nominator(s): Neelix (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because, since the previous nomination, this article has undergone an independent copyedit by Guild of Copy Editors member Baffle gab1978. It has also been promoted to good article status by Khazar2, who recommended that all mid-sentence citations be bundled before the article's next featured article candidacy. I have bundled all such citations and I believe that the article now meets the featured article criteria. Neelix (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Unfortunately I am not able to give this article a full review. It looks very thorough and comprehensive and is clearly the result of some dedicated effort, but I'm a bit concerned that, after what was presumably a full copyedit, the word "play" appears four times in the first line of the article. The first sentence needs to be rephrased; likewise the second: "the trafficking of children into sexual slavery in order to exploit them commercially as prostitutes in the child sex tourism industry" is  heavy-footed and repetitive. If the opening sentences are clumsily written the article loses credibility, and there's a chance that readers won't bother to go on.  So I suggest a little more work on the lead section. Brianboulton (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've reworded the lead to avoid repetition, including that of the word "play". I do not believe such repetition exists throughout the rest of the article. Neelix (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Neutral. I did not attempt a detailed examination of prose quality for criterion 1a. I do not think this article meets the FA criteria, and suspect that the limited quality of coverage means the topic may not be ripe for a FA at all, at least currently. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1b: This article feels incomplete ... and that's because it is. There are three articles dedicated to this play: the main one here at FAC, Critical response to She Has a Name, and 2012 tour of She Has a Name. As a result, this page dedicates a lot more space to what I believe was an entirely local first run than to the second run, which saw showings more widely across Canada. It also means that topics like the awards this play has received (assuming they're notable; I didn't take time to check) do not appear in the main article for the play at all. That's a problem.
 * I still don't think this needs to be three articles at all, but the content balance here is better now. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1c: The quality of the references is a concern. As far as I can tell, this play has gotten mostly local coverage. There's been a little notice elsewhere in Canada and in the US (but not, as far as I can tell, from the New York theater circuits). This is a play about child sex trafficking in Thailand, but I don't see a response from any Thai media. There's no mention of this play in scholarly literary or theater journals to date. As a result, much of this article (and the two spinouts) is referenced to local publications of dubious notability themselves. I don't know that it's possible to do better with this topic than the Red Deer Express, The Strathmore Standard, and local radio (including a reference to a broadcast on the Class A CFUV-FM, with only a 2290 watt ERP). I have doubts whether the amount of material cited to these small, local news outlets satisfies the FAC expectation of high quality sources.
 * 2c: I haven't seen this sort of "bundled" reference format before. I personally don't care for it because it makes it hard to see how frequently sources are used when they appear in multiple places in the reference list. The same Donnelly work, for example, is 2+, 10 (cited five times), and 27++. But I'm not sure that would be grounds for a 2c objection, and it's not my primary referencing concern. That concern is page numbers. There aren't any, for any of the print sources, and there should be.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squeamish Ossifrage (talk • contribs)


 * The two subarticles, 2012 tour of She Has a Name and Critical response to She Has a Name, were spun off during this article's first FAC; two reviewers recommended the spinoffs, so I performed them. I have readded some information from those two articles to this main article, expanding the "2012 tour" section to approximately the same length as the "Initial run" section and expanding the "Critical response" section with awards information. I do not see why the references are a concern; this is a Canadian play that went on a Canadian tour and shouldn't be expected to have recieved coverage in American media such as that in New York. There have been few major Canadian media outlets that haven't covered She Has a Name. The Chronicle Herald is Halifax's top newspaper and Halifax is the capital of Nova Scotia; The Gazette is Montreal's top English newspaper and Montreal is the capital of Quebec; the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is Canada's top media outlet period. The bundled citation format was recommended by the GAN reviewer and also solves the readability problems that reviewers brought up in the first FAC. I can unbundle them again if there is concensus to do so, but I think it would be a detriment to the article. As for page numbers, I received most of the citation information from the newspapers' websites, which do not include page numbers. I can try to retreive this information through my local library if that information is required. Neelix (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Those aren't the sources I'm concerned about. If those were the sort of sources that referenced the bulk of the article, I wouldn't have any concerns about source quality. But I think this article placed undue weight on small, local sources. Why should we consider the free community paper London Community News, the family-published Christian paper Country Sunrise News, or the Mennonite Brethren Herald (which doesn't even seem to have an About Us or editorial policy page available) high-quality sources regarding the themes of a play? In that last case, for example, the author of the cited source is a student and communications intern. Where is the thematic commentary from experts in the field? A considerable amount of the Themes section is also cited to various interviews and articles authored by Stephen Waldschmidt; this is not an independent voice, but the voice of the director. To some extent, this sort of self-sourcing is okay, but I have concerns that too much is based on it here. What makes the The Strathmore Times -- a weekly paper serving a town of only 12,000 people -- a high-quality source for critical response? Or a local Christian radio station in Winnipeg?  Sourcing quality aside, you either need links to online sources or page numbers from the paper editions, but several of your references have neither, which is why I noted that as a problem.  I have stricken my complaints about the bundled references; personally, I don't like them, but apparently I'm the one behind the times there. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Most of the critical responses to She Has a Name come from local newspapers spaced across Canada because those are the locations where the play has toured; the play went on a fringe theatre tour, not a Broadway tour. I would prefer not remove validly sourced information simply in order to balance the amount of information taken from large-scale and small-scale sources; I do not believe that the article violates our policy about undue weight. Still, I am willing to remove information if there is consensus to do so. I believe that all of the sources used on the article are reliable. I have included all of the reliable sources I believe to exist; I only submitted this article for an FAC when I was satisfied that there were no more sources to be added. None of the articles are authored by Stephen Waldschmidt; it only appears that way because of the spacing of the bundled citations. There are several comments from interviews with Waldschmidt and I can reduce the number of these if you believe that there are too many. I will try to get the page numbers you mention from my local library as soon as possible. Neelix (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have retreived all the missing page numbers and have added them to the citations. Have I addressed all of your concerns? Neelix (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Many of my objections have been admirably corrected. However, I still personally consider the sourcing a concern. The section in WP:RS about news sources suggests that small media outlets be approached with some measure of caution. "News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact."  Furthermore, it includes a reminder that the author of opinions should be considered when weighting an opinion's reliability and significance. "The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint." With those guidelines in mind, I have misgivings about many of the local, small-circulation publications that provide thematic analysis and commentary here. I understand that you've cited the sources that exist, that this is fringe theater, that it has gone unnoticed by performing arts journals and major mainstream publications, but I still do not believe that Country Sunrise News and The Strathmore Times are what the FA criteria demand in terms of high-quality sources. I realize that, especially in this case, that puts my expectations of sourcing quality in contention with the equally important FA criterion of comprehensive coverage. I do not have enough experience at FAC, especially with this sort of sourcing situation, to know whether the consensus here would lead to supporting or opposing the article on those grounds; lacking that, the best I can to is to do neither. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your evaluation of the article. With regards to your remaining concern (whether or not small-scale sources should be used to source the "Themes" section), I will be glad to make alterations if other reviewers agree that I should do so. Neelix (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I've wound up here entirely by a happenstance click on the bot GAN updates. Perusing the subarticles, this article, and the first FAC, I'm not entirely sold on the subpages being the right approach. More to the point, I'm not sure this play merits three articles on it, and that a better option might be to critically evaluate what's extraneous and what should be condensed. (I haven't looked at the source concerns listed above yet.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What makes you think that this play doesn't merit three articles? The amount of coverage it has garnered suggests that it does. All three articles have undergone independent copyedits by different members of the Guild of Copy Editors. The splits were recommended in the previous FAC and praised thereafter. I believe that this play merits three articles, but I am willing to act in accordance with consensus should consensus become established on this issue. Still, it has taken months to implement the changes recommended in the first FAC (ie. splitting the articles and sorting them out separately), all of which would be a waste if we squish the articles back together again. Neelix (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Coverage in the aforementioned small town papers does not make me think the topic needs 10,000 words, no. There's also the matter of sheer readability. Even in the condensed version of this article, I'm not seeing how I have to be told who was on every panel in every city the play was shown at in 2012 (or that the Centre to End All Sexual Exploitation's representative was named "Norma".) I don't know if this rises to a notability threshold of the subarticles (trying to parse where the notability of the play ends and the separate notability of its 2012 tour irrespective of the play begins sounds like an exercise in frustration), but it does impact the prose's quality and thus 1a and 1c of WP:WIAFA. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 21:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Our guidelines on content removal are clear that "content should not be removed from articles simply to reduce length". The listed acceptable reasons for content removal are when the information is unsourced, inaccurate, moved elsewhere, irrelevant, inappropriate, or the author's own addition. I don't believe either of these reasons applies to the information on this article. If you think a source used on the article is unreliable, I can remove that particular source, but I have never heard of removing content simply because it is sourced by local newspapers; is this common practice? I can understand removing information that is trivial, and I have therefore removed the details you mentioned and have made the talkback panels paragraph more concise. If you see other information in the article that is trivial, I am willing to remove it. Neelix (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My point is that WP:WIAFA has criteria that are different than general content guidelines—there is no Wikipedia policy regarding "brilliant" prose, but that's what featured articles require. If it's a chore to actually read the article because of extraneous detail, there might not be a policy guideline saying "articles should not contain every fact discoverable and sourceable to a topic", it still is a reason to oppose a nom. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying your objection; if your concern is that the article contains extraneous details, I would be glad to edit the article accordingly. I believe that I have addressed the specific details you have already mentioned. What others do you find extraneous? Neelix (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Having left messages for David Fuchs both here and on his talk page and waited several weeks without receiving a response, I will assume that his concerns have been met by my edits in response to Squeamish Ossifrage's comments unless I am informed otherwise. Neelix (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Support, for same rationale as previous: 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 like that some of the content was spun off into sub articles, with summary style kept at the main article, it looks like it was done appropriately. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 05:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.