Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/She Has a Name/archive3


 * 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 archived by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC).

She Has a Name

 * Nominator(s): Neelix (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a Canadian play that deals with human trafficking in Thailand. Although this is the third featured article candidacy for this article, the previous FACs took place more than a year and a half ago and, since then, I have done further work on this article and I have also seen several other articles through successful FACs, so I believe that both the article and I are better prepared to see a new FAC through successfully. I have reviewed the concerns raised in the previous FACs and I believe that they have been addressed. Neelix (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:She_Has_a_Name.jpg: suggest filling in the "n.a." parameters in the FUR
 * Several images have "evidence" listed in the Permission field - the licensing template already links to that statement, there's no need to relink it, and if it is kept it shouldn't be called evidence because it doesn't demonstrate that these files have that license
 * File:She_Has_a_Name_2011_-_Death.jpg: what is the licensing status of the set? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the image review, Nikkimaria! I have filled in the "n.a." parameters in the FUR of She_Has_a_Name.jpg. I removed the word "evidence" from all of the relevant images, although I left the rest of the content in these sections because I thought that leaving them blank might make it look like there were no permissions. If you feel that the content of these sections should be further altered, please let me know. I have e-mailed Stephen Waldschmidt about the licensing status of the set depicted in She_Has_a_Name_2011_-_Death.jpg. Hopefully, he will respond soon; he has been very responsive to previous inquiries. Neelix (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I heard back from Stephen Waldschmidt, and he was the one who painted the backdrop and designed the set. In retrospect, I should have known this already, as he is credited as the set designer already in the article. In any case, he was the one who released that image under the Creative Commons license, so there should be no issues with that image. Neelix (talk) 03:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Cliftonian feedback
Support. I think the article now meets the FA criteria. Great work David, and good luck with the rest of this nomination. A fine effort indeed. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  20:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese feedback
I've raised this point before, but the article and its two sub-articles are probably 90% fancruft. It is not necessary or desirable to include a day-to-day itinerary, detailed excerpts from paid/PR event listings, pull quotes from every local paper about how great it is, the internal self-congratulation of the production team, ticket sale information, etc. etc. It might be interesting information for a website about the play, but is wholly unencyclopedic and promotional. I cannot support featuring this article and furthering its obviously promotional goals. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The content in this article is primarily sourced by articles in public newspapers targeted at a public audience, not articles in fan magazines targeted at fans with niche interests; I do not see how the content in this article could be considered fancruft. As far as I can tell, this article does not include a day-to-day itinerary, nor detailed excerpts from paid/PR event listings. Critical reviews from newspapers are included irrespective of whether or not they are positive; both the favourable and the unfavourable reviews are included. The sole ticket sale information that is included is that the initial performances sold out, which seems to me to be quite encyclopedic information. I do not see why you would consider this article promotional; I have endeavoured to treat this subject as encyclopedically as possible. Neelix (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The Truth Zone You could literally find articles in "public newspapers" targeted at a "public audience" about any topic in the world. Anything. Newspapers need to fill up space, and they fill it up with bullshit like this. There's a play in town, they need to write something about it, there you go. This is not significant. Your article is not significant. The hours you have spent crafting this page do not make it significant. You are the very model of a stalker Wikipedian. The guy below who writes that this is "frankly quite moving" - hit the showers. I nominate this article for deletion. Somebody get Jimmy in here. Jimmy, check this shit out. This is who you've got running this place. Gimme a fucking break. Jimmy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.231.153.206 (talk • contribs)

Oppose. As other comments above have said, this is a fluff piece about a play that is, at best, of very minor regional/local interest. I'm not convinced this should be meeting Wikipedia's Notability criteria, let alone having an article this extensive written about it. The article is filled with minutiae and trivia that could only be of interest to the playwright's mother. The fact that the sources rely almost exclusively on tiny local newspapers (which would of course write puff pieces on whatever tiny local productions are playing at any given time) suggests just how small-scale and unimportant this topic is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.220.106 (talk • contribs)


 * Please note that the two sets of comments above were written through IP address accounts which appear to be controlled by a single person who has been operating a variety of new accounts and IP addresses in order to undertake a series of attacks against myself throughout this weekend. Neelix (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Support. Well written, widely sourced and cited, balanced, and frankly quite moving. A fine article, which I am glad to support. The adverse comments in the section above seem to me extraordinary, and I can't relate to them at all. Respectable newspapers and the comments of their drama critics are the obvious and sensible sources to go to. If in due course the play is dealt with in scholarly books, well and good, but we can't have a policy that nothing about anything new can get to FA till someone's written a book about it. For now the newspapers are exactly the right source. Official campus publications are always to be viewed with caution as far as WP:RS is concerned, but the citations to The Gauntlet et al seem to me as sound as those to the commercial newspapers. The press's views, both the appreciative and the adverse, appear to be fairly and proportionately reflected in the article.

A few minor points on prose: That's all from me. It is not easy to review an article that rather affects one's emotions while reading, but I am in no doubt that this is a fine piece of work, and it seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. –  Tim riley  talk    13:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * "The drama centers around" – some people get very hot under the collar at this construction, insisting that centring round is a logical impossibility. I think they're a bit silly, but I try to avoid stepping on their corns by writing "centre – or center – on", which seems to placate them.
 * Characters
 * "the same purpose as a Greek chorus in Greek tragedies" – you might pipe to get rid of the first "Greek" – it would help the flow of the prose
 * Pre-tour revisions and readings
 * "in the fall of 2011" – the Manual of Style bids us avoid dating things by seasons to avoid annoying people in the opposite hemisphere
 * Themes
 * "without averse effect" – adverse?
 * "disassociate" – not good BrEng ("dissociate" is the word) but if it's good Canadian English please ignore me.


 * Thank you very much for the constructive criticism and the support, Tim! I have implemented all of the suggestions you made above. Your comments are quite encouraging, and are greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Support and minor comments I've been here a few times already, happy to support. Two minor comments
 * Please check that where you have multiple refs, they are in numerical order. One or two aren't
 * "She Has A Name" in ref 50 looks odd and inconsistent. Even though it's the same in the source, I'd normalise it and lc the third word

Jimfbleak - talk to me?  16:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Jim! I don't think I ever would have thought to order the references numerically, but I agree that it looks better in that order. I have made both of the changes you recommended. Neelix (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. I've commented Support at the prior FAC discussions, as well. The article page about human trafficking seems to have only improved in quality since then. Good luck, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Source review by Cliftonian
Neelix has requested a source review from me. I'll check formatting etc in one section and do some spotchecks in a second. Reference numbers are given as of the time of this source review (permanent link here).

Formatting


 * Particularly for publications that don't have geographic indicators in their names I would recommend putting location tags in there as well to make clear where they are from. This is especially pertinent as the article leans not insignificantly on sourcing to local and regional media as opposed to the national press. For example the Country Sunrise News (ref 24), Gauntlet (ref 30), 100 Huntley Street (ref 32), The Chronicle Herald (several) could be from anywhere. Ditto regarding abbreviations such as CKOM (ref 73).
 * What makes The Reflector (ref 27) reliable? Who publishes it? Where?
 * I would recommend that more sources, such as Art Threat (ref 67), have the publisher given. For Art Threat this is particularly pertinent as it initially appears just to be some blog but scrolling down reveals it to be under the auspices of the Canada Council for the Arts. Red Deer Living (ref 60) is another example; who publishes this?

Spotchecks


 * Ref 1: So far as I can see the source doesn't specifically say Kooman's from Alberta, just that he's a "Red Deer playwright". This could just mean that he lives there. The Red Deer Living source in ref 60 (here) says specifically he was born and raised in Red Deer, so perhaps add this?

I'll come back and finish this later. Hope this helps for a start —  Cliftonian   (talk)  12:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Ref 4: Doesn't seem to confirm the statement that Waldschmidt "was initially reluctant to attach himself to the play because of the immensity and ugliness of the issues therein, but he ultimately worked with Kooman to expand it into a full-length play with an extra hour of material by the end of 2010."
 * Ref 20: incomplete reference to Lethbridge Herald—needs page number and/or url.
 * Ref 21: should be [sic] not (sic). Also I can't see here where "Kooman spoke highly of Waldschmidt's directing, and Kooman praised Waldschmidt's work as scenic designer". I think you've confused him with Krogman.
 * Ref 57: just says "the content is not recommended for anyone under the age of 15", not specifically that FreeFall Stage said this
 * Ref 60: says "they recently scouted locations in Cambodia", not specifically that this was in 2014. Perhaps reword to "By mid-2014 they had scouted locations in Cambodia" or something like this


 * I'm restricted in the spotchecks I can do on some of the sources as subscriptions are required for some of them. I will try to get by as best I can. More later. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  15:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I know I brought this up above as well, but it still bothers me—we say "The religious community's reviews of the initial run were also positive", but the reference is to a single Christian talk show. Both the wording and the sourcing here bother me. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that this Christian talk show reviewed it positively, rather than the whole "religious community"? What is the "religious community" anyway?

Cheers, hope this helps. If anybody else wants to do spotchecks as well that would be great as I didn't check absolutely everything. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  16:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Comments I'm not convinced that local newspapers are reliable sources by default. What makes the following reliable sources?:
 * Red Deer Advocate
 * Red Deer Express
 * Plank Magazine
 * The Strathmore Standard
 * The Charlebois Post
 * Country Sunrise News
 * Strathmore Times
 * Mennonite Brethren Herald
 * Fast Forward Weekly
 * Victoria News.—indopug (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Changed to oppose in light of the nominator's wikibreak. I believe this article should not pass until the local-newspaper sources have been examined and deemed to be reliable.—indopug (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikibreak notice
I am very sorry, everyone. Despite the fact that this FAC has four supports and looks like it is on the cusp of getting the article successfully promoted, I am going on a wikibreak. I have been the target of a very high level of trolling on Wikipedia these past few days, and I think it would be unhealthy for me to continue working in such an environment. I care about this article and would very much like to see it featured, but if it is not ready to be featured as it is now, or if others cannot get it to that point, I will simply have to renominate it for another FAC when I return, which I expect will be in February. Thank you all for your interest in this article. I hope you have an enjoyable, productive, and vandalism-free month. Neelix (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Graham Beards (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.