Wikipedia:Peer review/Edward Scissorhands (dance)/archive1

Edward Scissorhands (dance)
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it has valuable encyclopedic content that needs some editorial review.

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I have never heard of this dance show, but it sounds very interesting (I have seen the movie). Here are some suggestions for improvement.
 * Is this the best title? At first I thought it would be about a dance move like the Mashed Potato or the Boogaloo. Is it technically a ballet (story told in dance with no words soundsl ike a ballet to me, but I am not an expert)
 * It is not really a traditional ballet. The other name to consider would be like his more famous work, Swan Lake (Bourne), which might lead us to Edward Scissorhands (Bourne). Also, maybe Edward Scissorhands (Matthew Bourne dance).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. I started it at Edward Scissorhands (ballet) and moved it to its current name.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The only FA that is about a dance is Sylvia (ballet), which is a bit old and needs more refs. The only GA I saw about an actual dance production is The Dying Swan - both might be models for this article and give examples and ideas for improvement.
 * The lead is very short and seems like it could be expnaded a bit to me. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
 * I think every header is included now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. However the fact that the movie was set in the 1980s and the film in the 1950s is only in the lead.
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would call the Inspiration section something like Composition (as it is not just about inspiration, but that is a part of composition).
 * I went with Composition and development.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Second sentence of Inspiration is a mess - run on and too much for one sentence. Why not start with a bit of background about Bourne, include the all male Swan Lake there. Then move on to his search for new projects and the composition of this show?
 * Rearranged a bit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would identify Bourne in the caption as the show's creator
 * done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Can there be a fair use image of the show's poster or logo? One fair use image in the infobox for a movie or show is pretty standard.
 * Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Plot needs to focus on the actual plot - there is a fair amount in there which is fine for the article but is not plot (debut in SF should go into productions, based character on a dog could go into Composition)
 * At the same time the plot section has some needless repetition (He then ventures from his gothic origins into a suburban town where his loneliness is reinforced until he is taken in by Peg Boggs and adopted by both her family and the town. and He then wanders into a town where a family takes him in.[7] or his creator's death is repeated too.
 * However I did not have a good idea of the rest of the plot - does he fall in love with the Winona Rider character? Does he kill someone as he does in the movie? How does the movie plot compare to this - we are told a bit on this later (topiary dance here) and given a vague idea that the ending is different, but specifics here would help flesh out this section.
 * In Productions I would say that New Adventures dance company is British. Similarly, since it is a British company in the UK, why are the amounts given in dollars (and not pounds)?
 * The source is Time, which is an American magazine. Thus, US$.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Plot says the debut was in San Francisco, Productions says it was in London. Which is it?
 * Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * More needless repetition in Productions Since it's 11-week London season, the work has toured the United Kingdom, Asia, the United States, Australia and Europe.[15] as well as the very next sentence The United Kingdom tour extended for 14 weeks[3] and was followed by performances in Japan, Korea and the United States, where it ran until Spring 2007.[15] It should be "its" in the first sentence and I think "run" may be preferred to "season". In the second sentence "extended" sounds to me like the tour was made longer than planned, and the repetition should be eliminated - list places once.
 * Actually, I moved the continental overview to the first paragraph, where it does not seem redundant, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 *  New York run was held at the Brooklyn Academy of Music.[9] By the time it played in Brooklyn, it had visited a dozen cities.[11] Dates in NYC? Were the dozxen cities in the US only or in total since starting in London?
 * clarified.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I would mention LA in the US section and Paris in the European tour sentence, so that they are not a surprise in ''Among the cities that it sold out are New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Syndey, Melbourne and Paris.[22]
 * FIxed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * When was it in Asia / Japan / Korea?
 * I am unable to find the dates online. Probably not in english language websources.  It had to be between the Feb 2006 London closing and Nov 2006 U.S. opening.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Was it the same touring company that went all over the world or were there local companies in each country?
 * Yes. I am trying to makes sure the leads were the same and can't tell how long each lead stayed with the production exactly.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In Reception I would make it clear that the first paragraph is all reviews of the original London production.
 * Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It might also help to have some sort of introductory statement - it seems to me that reviews were mixed, mostly negative, but some praising it.
 * Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see the first sentence as negative, so saying in the second that it was also panned seems contradictory At the time of its off-Broadway debut, The New York Times described it as not "so much a dance enhanced by a famous story as a drama condensed by the removal of words."[29] It was further panned in a more detailed review the following week ...
 * I think Awards and nominations could just be Awards (as nominations are for awards too)
 * done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There seems to be contradiction - the sentences say The work received the 2007 Drama Desk Award for Outstanding Choreography.[30][31] Bourne was also nominated for Drama Desk Award for Outstanding Choreography that year for Mary Poppins,[31][32] but the table says it won "Unique Theatrical Experience" and was nominated for "Outstanding Choreography". Is the nom for Mary Poppins? If so, it should not be in the table here.
 * fixed--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Refs should be in numerical order
 * I think there is a bot that goes around fixing this type of thing. I will let the bot do its thing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs as they impede the narrative flow. Combine with others or perhaps expand them if possible.
 * There are no more one-sentence paragraphs now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Here are some comments, as requested:
 * Lead: This needs to be expanded to provide an overview/summary of the entire article. See WP:LEAD.
 * Conception and development: The article says: "The work was developed as dance theatre instead of as a musical".   Was there ever any discussion of making a musical?  I think this is misleading, because it suggest to the reader that a musical version is relevant here, but in fact, it appears to be a distraction.  I remember reading your early drafts of this article and assuming from this sentence that the first idea had been a musical.  I would simply delete the words "instead of as a musical".  The article says: "films that could be adapted into stage productions in his musical dance style".  Tell us more about Bourne's style of choreography and dance theatre.  If the reviews of this show, interviews, etc. do not describe it in detail, look for information about his style regarding his other pieces.  Look at the "Style" section in Sylvia (ballet).
 * Plot: The plot should describe the events of the work in chronological order - a summary of the story, divided by acts or scenes.  See How to write a plot summary.   The plot section should not contain information about the productions, the concept or anything except plot.  It should tell us more about the characters, what happens to them and what their relationships are.
 * Productions: Make sure you have mentioned anything notable about the cast and designers for the extensive touring productions. Has it always been the same cast, director, etc?
 * Analysis: The reviews, interviews or other articles that are mentioned throughout should be mined to create an analysis section (moving any analysis out of other sections) explaining the imagery, themes and concepts used by the author and choreographer in creating his concept for a dance adaptation of the film.  There is no discussion of the music itself. Is it rock? classical? What musical influences and styles does it show? What about the choreography? This is a dance piece, so it should describe the choreographic styles and how choregraphy is used to tell the story.
 * Ruhrfisch's comments above are so excellent, there is not much more I can add to them at this time, except to say that getting the peer review is an excellent way to proceed. Other models to look at for expansion ideas, in addition to the ones he mentioned, are  Swan Lake and The Nutcracker.  All the best -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Overall comment I had thought I had retired from difficult GAs. How did I get roped into working so hard on this one?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)