Wikipedia:Peer review/Toronto Light Opera Association/archive1

Toronto Light Opera Association
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it is very well sourced and very well developed. It is also a nice candidate for a WP:GOODARTICLE if we expand it by using the given references. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 09:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I will review this article for you just might take a little while. It is great to have more articles about theaters on Wikipedia and you have a good start here. Just by quickly looking at the article I can give you two things that will help. First of all the box at the top of the article needs to be dealt with, and secondly take a look at the automated tips in the toolbox here for some standard fixes. I'll work on reviewing some more later today--Found5dollar (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Found5dollar.

Ok so here we start...

Infobox
 * Your link to "Bill Wright" leads to a disambig page.
 * Can someone be a notable member if they are a red link?
 * You might want to think about using Template:Infobox theatre instead of the choir infobox as this is a theater troupe, not a choir... in fact the more I look at the parameters in the infobox I am almost positive it is not right for what this article is for.
 * Your infobox image needs alt text.

Lead
 * The dates the Association existed should be worked into the lead, not just in parenthesis.
 * You only have to link places, such as Toronto, the first time they appear in the article. Be careful of overlinking. Do you really need to link to what an "association" is?
 * "It only took a few years for the organization to become locally renowned" seems a little biased to me.
 * "Regardless of its high praise" again, biased?
 * [see comments below] All of the information in it should be found elsewhere in the article where it is sourced. The lead is there to summarize the whole article not introduce information that is not expanded upon anywhere else.

Notable members
 * Any section such as this should appear at the end of an article, before the references.
 * This whole section is basically about one guy. It should either be moved to his article, or greatly reduced to not give him undo weight.
 * Again, your link to "Bill Wright" leads to a disambig page.

Productions
 * Usually a list of shows performed at a theater is discouraged, but in this instance since there are so few and it is central to the association's main goal, it seems fine to list them.
 * You have basically told me the same thing twice here, once in text then again in a list. I do not think the list is needed.
 * Can you expand this section? Delve more into the history of the productions, talk about the "notable members" that were in each production, maybe dedicate a paragraph to each season of the association. This might be best accomplished by changing it from a "productions" section to a "history" section.

Other
 * The "external links" section is being used incorrectly. that section should be for other websites that have information about the Light Opera Association that a reader might find helpful, not how to access the references.
 * I really want to know more about the founding of the company. Why and how did Fred Mawson found the Light Opera Association? Why did they only do Gilbert and Sullivan?
 * I want to learn more about why the Association stopped producing shows. Did Mawson die? Did they run out of money? did interest in Gilbert and Sullivan wain? Did it turn into another theater company? None of these questions are answered by the article as it stands.
 * Did the company win any awards? You also tell about praise the Association received from local papers, was there any negative press? did anyone not like their productions for any reason?
 * What venues did the Light Opera Association use to produce operettas in? Maybe include a picture or two of various ones.
 * You might want to read through Referencing for beginners as right now your references are formatted in any of a number of ways. Try to standardize that.

In general there are a lot of facets of this organization that this article does not touch on. it would be great to get a fully rounded picture of what the Toronto Light Opera Association was. Good luck with flushing out the article more and if you have any questions feel free to ask me.

Reviewed by --Found5dollar (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Is this the right place to add comments about this review by the creator of the page? Or should I add them on the reviewer's talk page? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Here Anne. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay then:

Thank you, Found5dollar, for your insight. It has been very helpful.

I removed the Bill Wright link. There is no page about this Bill Wright at this time. I'm not sure how that got there.

Red links: Some of these people should have a page; it's hard to tell which just yet.

Info: User Ahnoneemoos added the infobox template. I'll pass the buck here....

Lead: I'm working the date in as suggested. Some of those excess links were added by overly enthusiastic contributers; I've removed some of them, but they might come back... I agree about the "renown" comment, which was added by an opera enthusiast, and I'll tone it down.

Your comment about not putting citations in the lead paragraph is interesting. I guess I was afraid if I didn't justify everything someone would delete the article. I'll see if I can move the citations later in the article.

Notable members section: I think I have improved this with information about more of the principal players.

Productions:

I've combined the duplicate sections into one compromise format.

I certainly plan to add new information to this section. The newspaper in Toronto which had the most theatre news has never been digitized or indexed, and it's an hour's drive to the nearest spot where I can see the microfilm, so this will not happen at once.

Changing the title to "history" is a good idea; that will help me move some of the citations out of the lead paragraph.

External Links - I felt it was important to explain why I had so many references that couldn't be viewed by others. I put this in a section called "Notes", and another user told me that this was incorrect and added them as external links. Is there a better way to put it? Or should I move this information to the talk page?

I will keep trying to find out more of the details that you would like to see. Maybe I'll find a Toronto resident to help me.

&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You are doing a really good job at moving the article along. Let me know when you get more fixes done and I would be happy to take another look or help you in any other way you need.--Found5dollar (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * . Anne, a peer review is just a suggestion. You don't have to do every single thing listed here. For example, Found prefers to not put references in the lead but that's just a suggestion. I would actually suggest the contrary 'cuz if it's not referenced someone might remove it or tag it with citation needed. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Ahnoneemoos. I didn't say to put un-referenced information in the lead, just that there should be nothing in the lead that isn't referenced elsewhere. If the information is referenced else where in the article then you do not need to cite it in the lead, as it is should be more generalized there. Read WP:CITELEAD if what I said was confusing. Sorry if it was.--Found5dollar (talk) 05:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh wow. i just re-read what i worte and was apalled by my "Try not to cite things in your lead." That is quite possibly the worst "not at all what I meant to say" I have ever done on Wikipedia. Just read WP:CITELEAD to see what I meant by it.--Found5dollar (talk) 06:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

. The use of "high praise" and "renowned" does not constitute WP:BIAS in this article since the association was called "an excellent organization" by the Toronto Daily Star (see references). It also only took them 6 years from being formed to receive such a review, which constitute a few years and establishes their renown. It's just WP:COMMONSENSE of adding 1+2=3. Regarding red links, see WP:REDLINK. It is not only encouraged but necessary. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well then, what you just wrote here should be in the article! The way it was written in the article just seemed like the writer was being biased, but if you quantify it with who said what and when, and why that is important, and perhaps add other reviews that were negative then no one would think it seems biased. In terms of redlinks it is just funny that all of the people that are claimed to be "Notable Members" are not notable enough to have wiki pages. That can be telling. I'm not trying to argue with you, You requested a review and I and I am supplying you with what I feel needs to be changed to get the article through GAC like was asked. If you don't agree with something, don't do it, I'm just trying to help out.--Found5dollar (talk) 05:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF, not WP:ARGUE. ;] &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Infobox
You might want to think about using Template:Infobox theatre instead of the choir infobox as this is a theater troupe, not a choir... in fact the more I look at the parameters in the infobox I am almost positive it is not right for what this article is for. --Found5dollar (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Ahnoneemoos added the infobox template. I'll pass the buck here. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Found, just WP:BEBOLD and change the infobox. I'm not familiarized with these topics so I put the one I found first. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As I haven't done any research into the organization, I feel i am not the best oen to be filling in the info box. Here it is again Template:Infobox theatre), the parameters are pretty well spelled out on the template page.--Found5dollar (talk) 05:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I looked into Infobox theatre and the problem is that template is more for the building per se. I have been looking around and the only infobox that comes close to this article is infobox choir, infobox musical artist, and Infobox organization. However, I can create a template for infobox ensemble which would cover these kind of articles and others. What exactly should I put on it? I'm not familiar with these topics, I'm more of a politics guy. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Coming from project opera but not speaking for the project, I think "ensemble" is too vague a term, I would think of a vocal ensemble or a chamber music ensemble first. I think infobox theatre company might be a good idea. Another option would be to include more parameters to "theatre", to cover the company aspects, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Like Gerda, coming from project opera but not speaking for the project, I changed the infobox to Template:Infobox organization (with limited fields). Frankly, I would leave it at that. The one for the choir is unsuitable and too rigid, leading to inaccuracies. For example, Gilbert and Sullivan were not an "influence" on this organization. Their works formed the core repertoire—not the same thing at all. I note that another box has been added with the repertoire. I don't recommend this. It is entirely redundant to the production section, clutters the page, and is potentially misleading. Did the TLOA perform only Gilbert and Sullivan? If not, the box is misleading. If they did perform only their works, then the purpose field in the main infobox should be changed to "Performance of operettas by Gilbert and Sullivan." Voceditenore (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think I got this. The problem is the way the article is redacted. I want to be able to see the repertoire of productions as a list, not as prose, so that I can skim through it quickly. I think the best thing would be to merge the section "Productions" into "History" without the div col We should then have a separate section called "Productions" that lists SOLELY the productions and their years. What do you guys think? &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd tend to agree with you on that solution. Also, the 2 column presentation of extended prose is not a great idea. It looks very cluttered and is difficult to read, particularly on small screens. There's no real reason for it—it's not like we're short of space :) Voceditenore (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what information the infobox is supposed to present in a "condensed" form. The first five sections of the infobox take up much more space and are more difficult to read than the one opening sentence, containing the same information. Then there are seven red-linked names in the infobox; these names are not linked in the article's prose. Both treatments indicate that these people are not highly notable, so why list them in the infobox. The infobox also does a great disservice to the presentation of the lead image; without such boxed contraints, it could be shown to much better effect at a size of 300 horizontal pixels.
 * I agree that the columnar presentation of the production history is awkward to read and presents unnecessary typographic challenges: in my view, the title of The Mikado in 1947 is broken between the bottom of one and the top of the next column.
 * While I'm here: that navigation template Opera companies in Canada looks quite awful; it starts with a red link which is never a good idea in navigation templates, and then uses way more space than necessary to list 14 companies in 5 lines which could be done in 2. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I would like to get rid of the column format. I found three more reviews today on microfilm at the Toronto Reference library, so I will be adding more information to each year. The Repertoire box makes the columns even narrower, particularly for people who don't have high resolution screens.

Also, I was asked of there were negatives comments from reviewers that should be mentioned to offset the "praise". I know it's a problem that the references are not on line, but in the three reviews that I have just found there was not one negative comment, only more praise. Either the reviewers were very easy to please, or these productions were very well done. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 04:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Is the infobox question settled? If so, I would like to change the "key people" Some of the people in that section are notable for things that they did after leaving the organization, so they aren't "key". Instead I would add the stage director Alfred Kidney, and the pianist Winnifred Smith Stewart, since they were vital to every production. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I've made several changes based on the discussion here.


 * 1) I removed the image from the infobox to a place where it can be better displayed. I completely agree with Michael Bednarek on this.
 * 2) I removed "Key people" from the box and replaced with the stage director and pianist
 * 3) I incorporated the repertoire into the infobox (if people think it's absolutely nececessary to have it at the beginning of the article—I don't, but that's a separate issue) and removed the separate and highly cluttering box.
 * 4) I slightly edited the Productions section to put the bit about 1944 having no productions due to the war in the History section and removed the double column format.
 * 5) I moved expand article to the External links section which I think is more apt as that's where the sources for expansion are located. Do we really need that big ugly banner at the top of the article as the first thing the reader sees? I think not :) Actually, I've now removed this completely and per WP:EL and Found5dollar's comments, also the external links which do not lead directly to any sources simply places to look for them. That kind of meta-commentary stuff belongs on the talk page, not in the article. Voceditenore (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Finally I edited the Opera companies in Canada template to fix the red link and make it more compact. Again, I totally agree with Michael on this one
 * Voceditenore (talk) 09:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * As the original author of the infobox and what not I would like to make it clear that I fully agree with the changes being made. I will also abstain myself from contributing further to this article as it is out of scope of my area of expertise and I believe there are others who might be better suited for this such as everyone else involved in this peer review. Please do take Anne under your tutelage as I have more new editors coming in from WP:AFC and Anne seems to be well under way. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Production details
Wow! I keep waking up in the morning to find all of these changes. I take it that most of the people who have taken an interest in this page are not from Ontario. The page looks much better after Voceditenore's edits. A question: From reviews and programs, I now have the names and parts played of the principal players in a number of the productions. Is it appropriate to add this much detail? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, I don't think any of us are from Ontario, we're just from "opera land". Anyhow, re the detail... it may be excessive, especially if the majority of the cast are not notable singers. I would only single out cast members for a production if they have a Wikipedia entry or are clearly notable enough to have one. However, review commentary would be appropriate including that which mentions a specific singer, regardless of whether or not they became notable. Voceditenore (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Notability in Opera
To be notable in opera, is it enough to have played in many productions (for example, in the article Bert Scarborough played in at least thirty productions over 42 years.) Or would he need to have played principal parts? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not so much notability in opera as notability in the Wikipedia sense, which is not to be confused with accomplishment, quantity of roles, or length of career. The subject has to have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources or fulfill one of the criteria at WP:MUSICBIO (adapted for classical performers). However, in practical terms, if they fulfill one of those criteria, they generally have also received significant coverage. Howard Mawson and Elizabeth Mawson are examples who pass the criteria—entries in The Canadian Encyclopedia, authored obituaries in the mainstream press (as opposed to family authored death notices and paid-for obituaries), etc. Voceditenore (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)