Wikipedia:Peer review/South Pacific (musical)/archive1

South Pacific (musical)
We've listed this article for peer review because… we intend to nominate it at FAC and would like feedback before we do.

This peer review discussion has been closed. Thanks, and Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Mad Scientist
 * Info box image. I have uploaded the 1949 promotional poster from the Majestic Theatre under "Fair Use" with a full rationale. I have deleted the "Playbill" but, perhaps we can use it elsewhere in the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Looks great!  I re-added the playbill cover lower down.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Header titles. The first two titles are not encyclopedic and seem a little confusing and redundant. "Background: Tales of the South Pacific " should be Overview and "Pre-opening night history " should be Pre-production history.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that "pre-production" carries meaning to the people unfamiliar with the theatre. The terms are meant to be more or less consistent with the other R&H that have been improved as part of this ongoing effort (all but Oklahoma! and The Sound of Music) And it's not intended as an overview, it's a discussion of Tales, how it came to be (remember, it is very contemporaneous with the musical) with some connections to the musical.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am quite sure that "Overview" is not correct. I have changed it to Background, because the section is purely background information about the source of the play.  I have not changed the other one back, but "pre-production" sounds like film speak.  I think it was better before.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I prefer "Pre-production" over Pre-opening night histor only because the tone of the latter seems a little awkward. I tend to believe that the reader understands that a "production" is the play itself and all of the required work involved to create the performance and is individual and unique to each "production", but it may well be confusing to say production at this early point in the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like to hear from other readers here. I wonder if you are used to reading about films rather than plays, where the press and audiences are used to "opening nights". -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course I would also like to hear from others and will certainly go with the consensus, but no....I am not "used to reading about films rather than plays". I understand what an opening night is but the "production" is the work that goes on to make that first opening performance and we seem to be discussing situations prior to the production actually beginning.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Encyclopedic tone. There are some issues I am seeing as I read through the article. I changed "Sensation" to "success" and note that even the first line of the background section reads like a novel and less like an encyclopedic article. Some general editing for tone is needed throughout the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. You are an excellent reader, but I must disagree with most of what you say here.  First, it was indeed a "sensation";  I don't think success adequately describes the craze, which we describe more specifically below, including the frenzy of ticket-buying and the fact that the show earned rave reviews and became the 2nd longest-running Broadway musical in history.  Also, I must disagree with (and have reverted) some of your other changes:  A musical is not a "Broadway musical" or a "West End musical" -- it is a musical that may be played in many markets.  It happens that the first major market that this one played in was Broadway.  Also, throughout the WP:MUSICALS project, we always refer to Broadway as Broadway theatre, which describes all the Broadway theatres and the concept of theatre works on Broadway.  I would rather that you commented here than made these changes directly, because in each case, they have been discussed at length before.  Please see the Article Structure page at WP:MUSICALS (and the associated talk pages) for lengthy archives.  As for tone beyond the word "sensation", can you be more specific?  -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If there is indeed a reference that refers to it as a "sensation" then that would be good as a quote perhaps but as the sentence stands it seems to be puffery. How was it a "sensation"? Some qualification in the lead where this is mentioned is needed. Yes, there are indeed "Broadway musicals" and this is one. When a show premiers on Broadway, it is the street that should be linked. When referring to the show itself is indeed referred to as a "Broadway musical" and a link to [[Braodway theatre" would be appropriate here.


 * Just reverting the changes you don't like is not working together. If you disagree with a change someone makes I would prefer it be discussed. I was invited here, I didn't intrude and I am trying to improve the article not make it worse. I will continue to find a way to find common ground.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I feel that the original language is an appropriate tone. There is no reasonable doubt that South Pacific was a huge success.  It ran for years and still is popular.  It made and still makes money.  I think that we've been successful at FAC with articles in similar tone, and that that's the best way forward. Perhaps some of the other peer reviewers will also give their opinion.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

See Tryout (theatre). See also the style we use at FA articles on musicals: Carousel (musical), The King and I, Flower Drum Song, etc. Did you mean to delete a lot of content with your recent edit? I invited you here, and your comments are very welcome, but we are in the middle of consolidating comments from several readers, and so I would ask you to make your comments here rather than editing the article directly. This is normal procedure at Peer Reviews, in my experience. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No I did not mean to remove a lot of information in the last edit. There was an interruption and reverts and I will have to look to see what content was lost and correct that. I took a small break away from the computer to not get frustrated. Thanks for the article suggestions to compare for language etc., however I would tend to feel the article that refers to "try outs" that you linked is not really a strong argument for referring to "previews". It just seems less than encyclopedic. Did you just ask me to not edit the article directly? I may not be very versed on Peer review" but I don't think asking editors not to edit the article is part of that. I accept being reverted when I make a bold edit unless the edit summary is that I am just being disrespectful. Even if the summary is just the opinion of the editor's view on how the article should be created I tend to try a different edit, but I am not sure if asking me not to edit the article directly is the best route. I will review the articles you linked and look at Peer review.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It is more usual at peer review for reviewers to take an outside view, rather than to get involved in making major edits to the article. In Broadway, after all, the theatre reviewer doesn't get that song cut from Act II (or at least, not directly).  I did not mean to offend.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * While I am a listed Peer Reviewer...I am not reviewing the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see the section called "How to respond to a request" at WP:PR. The first bullet point there notes: "Review one of the articles below. If you think something is wrong, or could be improved, post a comment in the article's section on this page (that is, the article's PR page, the way Tim riley has done below). -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ahhh....I see...this is where the confusion is from! You copy pasted my comments from the talk page here. I didn't place them here but felt you wished my comments to continue on this page. I am not, I repeat, not reviewing this article for peer review. I did not respond to a request from Peer Review. I responded to a request to comment and began editing the article. I have no problem letting the editors continue to carbon copy their headers. I don't agree with them, as I said. "Try-out" does not seem the right wording for "Preview" in the heading. But that is a consensus I can seek on the talk page not on the PR page.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not at all clear on what you are trying to say hear, but just reverting the work of another editor with the reasoning that moving large chunks of information is disrespectful was actually disrespectful and is an ownership issue, especially when you seem to think that I should defer to all your reverts which seem based only on your anger at some perception of disrespect by a bold edit. I believe the original production information should not be with the revival and summer stock information. Is there an FA article of a similar production you could demonstrate is done in this manner?--Amadscientist (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The King and I, for one.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, please see our previous FA articles on Rodgers and Hammerstein musicals: Carousel (musical), The King and I, Flower Drum Song, etc.  As we've been saying above, we've had numerous discussions on these very subjects that you are raising, and we are just trying to follow the same style used there and at WP:MUSICALS, where there is a whole Article Structure page devoted to these topics.  We're not angry at all, but in a Peer Review, usually editors comment rather than making major edits directly on the article, and then the people who are bringing the article to FA consolidate everyone's comments based on consensus.  Sorry I upset you.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, same here. Just understand that we have been through the process a few times and we are doing an article in a particular way if only to be consistent with others of its type.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * After reviewing the articles I see that there are headers that are also listed as "Casting and tryouts". The average reader will associate "try out" with "casting" as an audition when the actual term is "Preview". This is not a matter of the project article structure outline. I strongly disagree with the use of the term "Try outs" and prefer "preview".
 * I looked for an Project Style guide and didn't see one. Is there a link that the project editors have formed a consensus that when referring to Broadway musicals to link in the specific manner you suggested? I understand this difference may seem like semantics but my use was not inappropriate at all and the links were relevant. This does not appear to be a project related consensus that I am aware of. As for the structure I will certainly disagree with the manner in which it places sections. It creates a redundant rehash of information. The original production information should be at the top with the pertinent information about that production. The article is about South Pacific the musical production. Which production? Each theatrical article on Wikipedia is basically about the original production of the play, followed by the revivals. But, if you feel the project structure guidelines should automatically outweigh all other concerns, I can concede to it if it is the consensus of editors.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention that Peer review does state that we may edit the article. By the way, I am not responding as a volunteer reviewer. That is what I meant by I was invited here. I received a message to comment and became involved in editing the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, here is the Article Structure page that I mentioned: WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Assessment. I'm not saying that it rules anything, but it is a place where people have previously considered many of these issues and come to a consensus based on discussion; it's just guidance so that we don't have to reinvent the wheel each time.  As to the productions, the original production just happens to be the first.  In some cases, a show might begin on Broadway, or Off-Broadway, etc., but become more famous or successful somewhere else.  So, for that reason, and others, we had previously agreed with other editors that all the productions should be together under the Productions sectionj, and that is the way we have done it in our previous FA-articles on the Rodgers and Hammerstein musicals.  You could reasonably do it the way you have done it, but you are re-inventing the wheel without a very persuasive reason (in my opinion).  If you brought up the suggestion here, other editors could comment on it and see if they agree with you, or with Wehwalt, myself, and the previous consensus.  Of course, if there is a new consensus, we would follow the new consensus. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

If I may comment here, I appreciate the efforts Amadscientist has made here and on the main article page, but I really think it is better, as I have done below, to make suggestions to the main editors rather than to dive into the article and edit it. My advice would be: comment on this PR page, and in the – I think unlikely – event that one is dissatisfied with the principal editors' response, then to ask other Wikicolleagues for comment. I am bound to say that the changes Amadscientist made off his/her own bat don't seem to me to be an improvement. No suggestion of WP:OWN but the two main editors here really do know a thing or two about Rodgers and Hammerstein and getting articles on them up to FA. Happy to discuss further if wanted. Tim riley (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Supporting the two editors is fine, but asking me to not edit the article goes against the spirit of the project. If my contributions were not improvements I will request the poster be deleted as uploader.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think there is a consensus that the poster is an improvement, and I thank you for it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As I noted above, in the section called "How to respond to a request" at WP:PR. The first bullet point there notes: "Review one of the articles below. If you think something is wrong, or could be improved, post a comment in the article's section on this page (that is, the article's PR page, the way Tim riley has done below).  You're right that it also says, "Feel free to improve the article yourself", and people often do make minor changes.  But generally they save major changes for discussion on the PR talk page.  Of course you may make any changes you like, but it would be more efficient, for major changes, to discuss them first, and see if a consensus can be found regarding major changes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that's the point, that minor changes are fine, but wholesale unilateral restructuring is not the right way to approach peer review. It would be very sad if Amadscientist took comments about the structure of the prose to imply that the image he uploaded should be taken away, for it is most welcome. As, of course, are further comments from Amadscientist, which all interested editors will be glad to see and comment on. Tim riley (talk) 22:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am afraid everything I had done was lumped into one "Stop editing the article and let the experts handle it" by most editors Ssilvers. I did not see the structure issues from your link to the Project page instructions at first. After seeing the examples I understand how the structure is being built from an interpretation of the linked structure guide. However I have concerns and have made a point of discussing here. But perhaps what I should be doing is leaving the peer review to those that have asked me to stop editing and allow them the room to continue. I respect the projects but we don't always agree on implementation.. but I do respect your work with the projects. I don't believe that projects structure is of the utmost importance, but others do. The simple fact that one article has made it to FA is enough to demonstrate that this is likely to head that way without my contributions or my concerns being addressed, although I do think that Ssilvers will do a good job as always. While I do disagree with a number incidents that occurred while I began editing the article, none of them were really from that particular editor. They believe I should allow others to edit and merely make comments here. I can't make that commitment, but I probably shouldn't participate in the PR further. I did delete the poster. I am not prepared to commit to a Fair Use upload of the file under these circumstances. I believe the spirit of Peer Review was not met here in my opinion and that it may be that attempting to stick to a rigid "This worked with these articles so it should be used here" attitude may not be best route. But it is a route that at least can be said to gain an FA rating even if it means that others may not participate with contributing to the article itself.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I think this is sad and truly regrettable. Clearly Amadscientist, who I understand is an Admin, has very strong views, but one is sorry to see him/her "taking his bat home", as we used to call it when I was a boy. Sad though it be, let the rest of us press on with the peer review, with contributions from as many Wikicolleagues as care to join in – the more, the merrier! Tim riley (talk) 23:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not an administrator. Taking my bat home....? You told me to stop editing the article and that "my off the bat contributions were not improvements". Fine. Then you upload the poster under your account. It isn't public domain and the work it took to upload it was not an improvement to the article it was uploaded to in your own words. It isn't a free file so I am not going to let it hang around under my name under these circumstances. If you think it is an improvement upload it under your account. There is no strong view here. I was reverted by a sysops who is editing this page with an edit summary that moving large chunks was disrespectful. Not because there was a valid reason he cared to share like: "We are following the exact same structure, including header titles." I may still not agree that that is needed but it would have been a valid revert. They, you and Ssilvers have told me to stop editing and just comment here, even though my original comments were copy pasted here. I was invited to comment on my talkpage, had my comments copy pasted here on this page and then told to stop editing the page. I am not taking anything home. the poster does not belong to me and I am being pushed off the review and I didn't even ask to come here, just made a good faith effort to contribute to both the peer review and the article. Yes, sad is a way to describe the situation, but yes...please continue the PR.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh dear! Sad, indeed! I hope I didn't tell anybody to stop editing, and I don't believe anyone else has, or would wish to, and it would in any case be ultra vires. I certainly didn't re-upload any image, but if any other editor has, and it complies with WP rules then fair enough. But please don't nurse a grievance. Your contributions will continue to be welcomed throughout Wikipedia; consensus may be against you on this page at this moment, but I hope you won't hold that against us. Tim riley (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I also regret it and hope he will reconsider. While my words seem to have been the source of offense, it is considered a good idea to consult with the nominating editors on these things, and to assume that thought has gone into the current setup.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What happened is very simple. I received an invitation to post on an article that I have an interest in, as it was the very first professional production I ever did, many years ago. My initial comments were made to the Peer Review thread on the article talk page and were copied pasted here with the expectation that the comments could be discussed. I believe they may have been the first comments made for this PR. This may have been perceived as an attempt to actual review the article and an expectation that I would discuss the article and allow other editors to edit the page was suggested, however my initial "off the bat" edits were to add a fair use poster which was an edit that I made to the article and then discussed in good faith. I was told that in the past, peer reviews have allowed the editor that brought the PR request forward the ability to do the editing from a reading of the guidelines at WP:PR. The edits that I made were determined, by consensus, to have no value and were not improvements to the article, on top of a few other specific discussions in regards to language that were brought up. This was not an attempt to review the article, but to contribute to it. Anyone may upload that poster if it is the specific consensus of editors that it would be an improvement. There are three other editors involved here and each has suggested that I not edit the article itself. I double checked. Editors here have also demonstrated that they have brought other similar articles to FA though this process. This means that they may not wish outside engagement by others at this point and I believe someone even mentioned the fact that the editors have great experience with Richard Rodgers, and Hammerstein. This is a great asset. Ssilvers' expectation that editors not edit the article while reviewing is not per guidelines but as others have also added the suggestion along with the opinion that my contributions were not improvements, I requested the deletion of the Fair use poster as the uploader. Whatever contribution I may have for the article is simply not worth the current effort of pretending to be a salmon swimming up stream against the flow. I encourage all editors to review the full policies and guidelines for Peer review and ask that no one ask another editor to refrain from editing an open, unprotected article for any reason. Suggesting that, perhaps, they join the "plan" and discuss in that direction is easier than just reverting what another took time, in good faith to work on. Clearly Ssilvers is simply following what they have been successful with and I give them great kudos for it. Sorry I am so unfamiliar with this particular process, but I note it seems to be a learning experience that FA can be achieved through the Peer review process as a stepping stone to FA nomination, so I thank Ssilvers for that.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break to avoid edit conflicts
Just two preliminary queries from a first swift read-through: we hyphenate "step-brother" in these islands, though perhaps you don't where you are. And I am 99 per cent sure that Dictaphone is a trademark – so should it either be capitalised or replaced with "dictation machine" or similar? Shall now go and read the article carefully and report back. I rather think I'm going to enjoy this. – Tim riley (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments from Tim riley


 * Stepbrother is OK in US English. You are correct on Dictaphone and on reference to Logan's memoirs, I find he used the word properly capped.  Changed.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry! Aged mind wandering. Not stepbrother at all, but "half brother" - two words in your text, and I wonder if that is usual in US usage. Tim riley (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. Does anyone want to weigh in?
 * Half brother is two words (not hyphenated) in American English. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Muffled rustling noise as Riley retreats furtively. Tim riley (talk) 21:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Detailed comments: first batch:
 * Lead
 * "should he wed his Asian sweetheart" – I'm conscious of differences in nuance in US and UK usage, but to a British reader "wed" is a word used only by tabloid newspapers; normal people say "marry".
 * Change made by Wehwalt. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "The issue of racial prejudice" – not sure why you blue-link "racial prejudice" having not linked "racism" in the previous para.
 * Fixed by Wehwalt. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "became the second-longest running Broadway musical to that point in history" – two things here: "in history" is surely superfluous, and though I have no doubt you make it clear in the main text what was the longest, I think you really oughtn't to tease in the lead, and should tell us here what the longest one was.
 * Change made by Wehwalt -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Its racial theme provoked controversy, especially in the Southern U.S., for which its authors were unapologetic." – ambiguous: R&H were not unapologetic for the Southern US. You might like to think about turning the sentence about: "Especially in the Southern U.S., its racial theme provoked controversy, for which its authors were unapologetic." Alternatively parenthetical dashes rather than commas round "especially in the Southern U.S" would do the trick.
 * Change made by Wehwalt -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * and it is the only musical production to win Tony Awards" – is there a WP:DATED consideration here? Are you confident enough that such a thing will never happen again to risk it? I'd be inclined to play for safety and say "at 2013 it was the only…"
 * That would be a significant event in theatre and I think would get enough publicity, with specific reference to it being the only one besides South Pacific, that I think we can count on a rapid change. That's really my test on DATED:  will someone else doing it be notable enough that there would be such a change?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I Agree with Wehwalt on this. I also think that it is possible that it will never happen again.  In any case, I think Wehwalt is right that if this were to happen, we would pounce on it and update it right away -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Or it will be put in the article by the people who do such things as write the award about each year's Tony awards.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * All right, already! So call a policeman! Wrong show, but point thoroughly taken.


 * Background
 * "She bent Michener's ear" – a pleasing phrase, but perhaps a touch informal for an encyclopaedia article?
 * I think it's OK. It tells the reader what happened and evokes Bloody Mary's personality in the play.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "spoke at length" or "spoke incessantly" to Michener? I agree that it's rather idiomatic.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've taken a shot at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That looks very good to me. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Casting and tryouts
 * "Trude Rittman and Russell Bennett" – no first name for RRB?
 * Change made by Wehwalt -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Logan persuaded … Emlyn Williams to go over the script" – seems a touch pointless mentioning this unless you also mention the outcome of EW's scrutiny.
 * Change made by Wehwalt -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

More to come soonest. Tim riley (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Except where commented on, I've dealt with it. Thanks for your help.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Round two:
 * Synopsis
 * "to witness a Boar's Tooth Ceremony" – explanation or blue-link needed for those (e.g. me) who have never heard of such a thing. The phrase comes up earlier, but I think the explanation or link is needed at this point
 * Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Additional songs
 * "re-instated" – never seen this hyphenated before
 * Fixed--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Original productions
 * "and although aged 58, he was acclaimed as a sex symbol" – and what's so surprising about that, pray? User:Tim "alias 61-Last-Birthday" Riley. Only joking. I know perfectly well.
 * Captain Brackett says something similar when Cable expresses surprise at Nellie's interest in Emile, giving him something of a speech about how although he is fifty, he is a bachelor and does not consider himself to be "through". It's one of the jokes which survives well.


 * 20th century revivals
 * "a curtain speech – one (that is, this one) tends to think of curtain speeches as taking place after a performance. Perhaps "a short speech was made before each performance…"?
 * Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * 21st century
 * "and is scheduled to resume touring in Australia in September 2013" – WP:DATED – point taken about the four Tonys, but ...
 * I certainly plan to keep an eye on this and update it as news happens. WP:DATED says, "Avoid statements that date quickly, except on pages ... that are updated regularly."  I think this would apply to FA pages, which are watched by several watchers. We know that we need to review this item in September 2013.  Wehwalt and I will certainly update this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Critical reception
 * "Your Maslon source rather over-emphasises the negative reviews in the UK press in 1951. Philip Hope-Wallace gave it a most friendly review in The Manchester Guardian ("South Pacific", November 2, 1951, p. 5), and The Times was well-disposed, but rather bizarrely thought it a bit too American (hello?) in places. If you would care to cite the original Daily Express source rather than Maslon it is: "Alas, Some Not Entirely Enchanted Evening", John Barber, Daily Express, November 2, 1951, p. 3. (Maslon elides two sentences from different paras without fessing up with the dots that ought to be there after "Madame Butterfly".) Copies of all to hand if wanted. – Tim riley (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be good to use, as you say. If you could send them, we will insert a few choice phrases.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Tim riley (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Wehwalt, would you kindly do the honors on this when you have a chance? No rush.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

See also supplementary comment about "half brother", above. Tim riley (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Final batch from Tim riley:
 * Sex and gender roles
 * "Princeton" – second mention. Not linked earlier, and perhaps it ought to be?
 * This seems to have been fixed earlier. Let us know if you still see a problem. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "after leaving his place as a barker to love Julie" – this reads rather strangely. Would "for love of Julie" be more precise?
 * I agree. I think the reference to Julie is redundant, as we have already said they did it for their wives.  Deleted "to love Julie". -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Lovensheimer deems Allegro…" – a bit of a marathon sentence. You might break it with a semicolon after "marriage", perhaps
 * Broke sentence in two. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Cultural effect
 * "Fake ticket stubs … washing men from hair" – I just wish to say that this sentence has brightened my day!
 * "Mordden notes that South Pacific contained nothing but hit songs" – could you really describe "Dites-Moi", "A Cockeyed Optimist" and "Twin Soliloquies" as "hit songs"? "Mordden notes" implies that you agree with him (and if you do, ignore me); if you don't then "Mordden comments" might be preferable.
 * Good point. Done!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "show opera, and classical performances" – is there a comma missing here?
 * Yes, added comma but removed serial comma. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Recordings
 * "Drawn from the original masters, Columbia released" – oughtn't this to be "Drawing from…"?
 * I think you're right. Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "According to critic John Kenrick" – you've mentioned him in the previous para. I'd be inclined to move the job description
 * Well spotted! Fixed. -- ````
 * "by Decca" – as you link other record companies perhaps Decca Records might get a piped link too?
 * OK, I added a link - both of you please check to see that I got it right. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "were dubbed by other singers" – two things here: if Brazzi, Kerr and Hall weren't up to singing their own parts could you truly call them singers at all? And if not, then "other singers" isn't quite correct. Secondly, are the singers who provided the voices artists we'd have heard of, à la Marni Nixon?
 * I delted "by other singers" as redundant. I added a mention of Ravenscroft, because he later became a household name as television's spokesbeast Tony the Tiger, and we mention Tozzi further down.  I don't think the other singing voices are worth mentioning, and we'd like to keep the discussion of the adaptations brief, if possible.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Notes
 * I detect a subtle plot on your joint part to unhinge the pedantic reader (and who might that be, we ask ourselves.) The explanatory footnotes are indicated in the text with letters and when you get down to the notes, lo, they are prefaced with numerals!
 * That is W's design, but it seems like a great idea to me, to further distinguish the two kinds of footnotes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Aha! I see what's amiss here, and you must have wondered what I was blathering about. You, I have reason to believe, are a Firefox user, and I have just checked thereon and all is well. Ref "a" links to explanatory footnote "a". Using Microsod Internet Exploder, however, you get in the text: She told him also of her plans to oppose colonialism in French Indochina.[a], but the relevant note shows up as 1. ^ Michener later reflected… As more readers use Mr Gates's delightful product than Firefox's (or so I understand) you need to be aware of this anomaly, and perhaps circumvent it by using the old format or something else Microsoftproof. Tim riley (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I know how to do that. Ssilvers, is this something you can look at?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yours to command, if wanted, Tim riley (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The would get round this: I'd be happy to help too, if you decide to go down that route. (We're using it on our latest re-write at Terry-Thomas, if you want to see it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, Tim and/or Schro -- please do fix the explanatory note style. Thanks very much, in advance!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, please feel free, very much so.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. I think it's OK now, but of course revert if it displeases you. Tim riley (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

That's all I have. I was expecting a lot from this article, and I was not disappointed. A particularly fine piece of work. Bravi! – Tim riley (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help, Tim riley! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Just browsing through again, most enjoyably, and I wonder about the nice pic captioned "Florence Henderson as Nellie, 1967". The Commons details say "From the 1967 program for South Pacific", which is doubtless correct, but it looks to me more like one of the standard cast photos printed in all theatre progs, i.e. F Henderson as F Henderson, rather than F Henderson in costume and character as Nellie. Quite prepared to be told I'm wrong, but changing the caption to "Florence Henderson: Nellie in the 1967 production" would solve the problem, if problem it is. – Tim riley (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's taken from a page of images from the production. I think it's intended to be.  Click the source link and it should take you there so your opinion welcome.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Whoops! Point taken. I withdraw. Tim riley (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Further arbitrary break
Comments from SchroCat

Excellent and informative article: long, but not overly-detailed. Well done to all concerned. A few very minor points from me—feel free to ignore what you don't like or agree with; as an Englishman I may have confused a couple of bits of BrEng in AmEng, so forgive my ignorance:

Inception
 * "which Hayward grudgingly agreed to"; it may be a little pedantic (or even wrong in US-speak), but "to which Hayward grudgingly agreed" is more correct in the UK.
 * Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the type of arrant pedantry up with which we shall certainly put! -- Ssilvers Churchill

Songs
 * "There Is Nothing Like a Dame": Should the Is be is?
 * Not sure. Ssilvers?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The verb "to be" must always be capitalized in a title, even in those islands across the pond. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * thanks for that—never knew that one before—I shall have to try and track down the similar errors I have made elsewhere with my "corrections"! - SchroCat (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

20th century
 * "One in 1957 at Long Island's Westbury Music Fair occurred at the same time that Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus was resisting the integration of Central High School by the Little Rock Nine": I feel there should probably be a comma somewhere in this.
 * No shortage, so added two.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

First batch done, will resume later. - SchroCat (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, SchroCat. Very helpful!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Second batch from SchroCat

Revivals v Reception and success


 * It seems odd to read about the various productions in the 2000s, and all the awards they won, and then to go on to the Reception and Success section to read about the original run. Is there a reason why the Revivals section isn't much later in the article, to give some chronological feel?


 * I think it is pretty standard in our FA articles so far to discuss all the productions before presenting the reception section, and it makes good sense to me. However, I am tempted to move "box office and awards" below "Critical reception".  Can anyone else comment on that?  -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the thing that jarred most was reading the fairly complete breakdown of awards for the string of revivals in the "Revivals" section, then reading the awards of the original in the "Reception" section. Perhaps you could think about taking the awards out of Revivals and moving them all into the Reception section? I'll let others comment and tell me if I'm barking up the wrong tree, but it's worth a thought at least. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Done! Also moved box office below critical reception.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Critical reception
 * Does the original New York Daily Mirror quote have "Every one", or "Everyone"?
 * I have not viewed the actual newspaper, but I just checked the Suskin book I got it from and it is "every one", as rendered.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Biblio
 * Does "Most, Andrea. " 'You've Got to Be Carefully Taught'" need the space between the double and single quote marks?
 * It's not necessary, I suppose, but I do it to make life easier on the reader, especially when it is tied up with italics (which it is not in this case, but having the space makes the quotes clearer".--Wehwalt (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I have never added this space, but I'm not sure it's "wrong". I would like to hear from User:Finetooth, who is, I think, the undoubted punctuation expert on Wikipedia.  Can anyone entice him/her here?  I would love for him/her to give the article the Finetooth treatment.   -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Only the few little extra comments, and still an excellent article on another read-through. Please drop me a line when you go to FAC. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Less arbitrary break than before
Brianboulton comments: A great-looking article. With such a wealth of review comments already registered, I'll confine myself for the moment to a couple of observations on the lead:
 * Is Logan's peeve really lead material? ("Logan always felt that he was underpaid for his contribution")
 * I agree with Brian -- I think we can save this for later, eh, Wehwalt? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The phrasing "spawning a 1958 film and television adaptations..." suggests that there was more than one TV adaptation. Only one is mentioned in the article. The phrasing also half-suggests that the TV adaptation was shown in 1958, when in fact it was more than 40 years after the film.
 * No, we mention two, although one of them is a broadcast of the Carnegie Hall concert version. I'll let Wehwalt look at the possible ambiguity re: date.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've played with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I would like to read the article in detail, but won't have time until the weekend. If you want to take the article forward before then, that's fine by me – I'll catch it at FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Take your time, Brian.  We can certainly wait until then, and we would very much value your further comments.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Later: I've got down as far as the start of the "Reception" section. I've not got a lot to say; the article is very impressive in almost every respect. A couple of points:
 * I got a little muddled in the "Inception" section; the details are not easy to follow, and I wonder how interested the general reader will be in the minutiae. Could the section be reduced a little?
 * Shortened.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Returning to a point I made concerning the lead, is Logan's dispute over credits really worth two whole paragraphs of text? It tends to the article down – most readers will, I think, want to get to the meat more quickly.
 * Also shortened.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought this was cut a little too much, and I restored a little bit. Does it look good to you now, gentlemen?  By all means, cut it back further if you think I restored too much. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no objection. I'll probably tweak the prose when I get around to it!--Wehwalt (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

And a handful of very minor issues:
 * Background: I suggest the more common word "counterpart", rather than "analogue", which has a slightly un-human connotation
 * Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a footnote could clarify that in the US military, all nurses are automatically given officer status to prevent fraternisation with the common soldiery. In the UK armed forces, only senior nurses are officers. I see this point is made in the plot synopsis - maybe it could be brought forward.
 * I've put it fairly far forward, though without a footnote.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know whether the example "such as Ensign Lisa Minelli" will make sense to readers without explanation. Was this a jokey reference to Judy Garland's recently-born daughter?
 * Well, it's one of the names of the nurses. The source called attention to it in much the same way.  A coincidence of name. No strong views if you feel it should be removed.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd remove it -- I don't think it helps the reader. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I will try and cover the rest as soon as I can, but I am not picking up much. Brianboulton (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these comments, Brian. We look forward to the rest!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Final pickings:
 * Critical reception: After Tynan's review, we jump more than 50 years for the next critical comments. Did anyone have anything interesting to say meantime?
 * Yes, and I've added something which I think fills the gap nicely.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Good, Wehwalt. Note also that comments about revivals in this section are intended to address the show itself rather than particular productions.


 * "Another writer" should be identified, as should his publication.
 * Named and shamed.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree with naming the non-notable writer, Wehwalt. In fact, I have been meaning to request that we remove all non-notable names of reviewers, although I agree that we should name the publication if it is notable.  Otherwise, the reference in the footnote identifies the writer well enough.  Please send me an e-mail if you want to discuss this in more detail.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't feel strongly about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Box office and awards: The sentence "The New York Times and other newspapers published glowing reviews of the show; one critic called it 'South Terrific'" properly belongs in the reception section.
 * I've deleted it rather than moving it (it is actually on page 194 rather than 195 of Nolan if anyone feels like moving it back in). We have superlatives enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * What are "scalpers" (not a term used in the UK - sounds a bit slangy)?
 * Piped to ticket resale--Wehwalt (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I may be misunderstanding the figures, but with a weekly gross of $50,600 the production gross of $2,635,000 would be reached in a year. The production ran for 5 years, so I would imagine that overall, the Broadway production grossed more like $13 million.
 * The actual quote is "Its gross of $2,635,000 was bigger than that of Show Boat." It may be a theatre term and they are actually referring to the annualized figure.  Ssilvers, can you shed any light here?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. As of what date was that the total gross? The figure struck me as rather low when I first saw it.  Show Boat ran less than 2 years.   -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not given a year, which makes me think it must be an annualized figure. Based on the weekly proceeds, it should not be difficult to calculate.  I don't think South Pacific weakened for the summer, at least not for two or three years.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Any money figures available for the London production?
 * Haven't found any, and nothing obvious on the Web. Will check my remaining sources.  I should note that the first-night London reviews Tim was kind enough to supply indicate that prices were much lower than New York, and of course the ol' pound sterling's not what it once was.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know where to get historical box office numbers. Some day the information may be available online.  I don't think the information is, frankly, of much interest.  If the London transfer had been more successful than the Broadway production, then the number would be of more importance. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "The late Robert Russell Bennett was also recognized that season..." Can you clarify how he was "recognized"? Since he died in 1981, it's hard to imagine how he was recognized "that season", i.e. 2008.
 * Changed.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "The Northern press had a field day" is an editorial observation, perhaps.
 * Taken almost directly from the source. It's borne out by the actual coverage in the NY Times, which I've looked at.  I think "Lovensheimer states that the Northern press had a field day" would be excessive.  I actually toned it down, he says Northern "liberal press".--Wehwalt (talk) 11:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "Lovensheimer sees Billis as more defined by class than by sexuality, evidenced by his assumption, on learning that Cable went to college in New Jersey, that it was Rutgers (the state's flagship public university) rather than Ivy League Princeton, and by his delight on learning that the rescue operation for him had cost $600,000 when his uncle had stated he would never be worth a dime." I am afraid that, by the end of the sentence, I have no idea who is talking about whom.
 * I tossed a noun in there to make it clear the focus is steadily on Billis.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the words "with a turntable speed of 33⅓ rpm" are probably redundant, given the LP link.
 * For you, and I, but to the iTunes generation?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Very little comment on the 1958 film. To what extent was it a popular success (box office etc)? What did the critics think, apart from the comment about the colour changes?
 * I've added some details on its success. I'll see if I can find a generalized comment on its critical reception.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * (Aside): Glenn Close must have been well over 50 when she played Nellie. Did no one notice?
 * It would have been interesting had the Emile been considerably younger than herself.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like to have seen her doing the handstand that hurtled Mary Martin into the orchestra pit. Brianboulton (talk) 13:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think some critics mentioned her age, but we do not want to give too much ink to the adaptations. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Sterling work on the part of all concerned. Brianboulton (talk) 10:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * PS: I don't think it's such a good idea to put an arbitrary break midway through my comments, though.
 * Moved back up. Sorry.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments and kind words, and for being willing to do this review. I've gotten through all those; I will see if I can find out anything on the finances of the London production.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

My review comments are generally by way of observation, and it is for the main editors to decide how far they should be implemented. The only thing that I feel does need some further clarification is the box office figures: a $50,600 weekly take, a five year run (1900+ performances) and $2.6 "gross" don't add up, and  any ambiguity should be resolved before the article goes forward. Brianboulton (talk) 06:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We're puzzling that over still, and if we can't resolve it, we will remove the 2.6 million figure, which strikes me as very close to 52 times the weekly take (with some minor adjustment for the few holidays on which Broadway closes). Understood and thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We're pretty sure it's an annual figure but it is best to remove it I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

This peer review discussion has been closed.