Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Pipe Dream (musical)/archive1

TCO prose review (transfer from main page)
TITLE


 * Link to the disambiguation page.


 * I will try to mosey around to the other articles and make them link the disambig page also.

LEAD


 * Very readable and well constructed. Not a tease, but also not overly long.  Good summary, and since the overall article flows so well and is not super-long, think this length of lead is fine.


 * cut mention of the specific theater in lead.


 * Link to the novel Cannery Row, not the street and compose the sentence to reflect that.


 * Delink the duo RnH (it's too much, you got them enough as individuals).
 * We have to have a link to that somewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

INCEPTION


 * and that fact -> which


 * The show was a hit, -> delete the comma

WRITING AND CASTING


 * Nice Steinbeck pic


 * in 1953, as -> delete the comma. Also, I think "while" works better.


 * be placed -> go
 * I think that would be judged as too informal.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * actual writing -> writing


 * on location: cut this (not needed and confusing when the film is titled Oklahoma!)
 * I thought it was ironic, but yes, it is not really to the point, is it? The crazy expensiveness of the production of Oklahoma!'s movie is a story in itself, though it produced a fine movie, though Aunt Eller and her neighbors would no doubt be startled at the idea of mountains in Eastern Oklahoma ...--Wehwalt (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually even as a very young child, this gave me a "wha" factor. I mean it's still a great flick and great songs and all, but you could sorta sense they had screwed up the geography.  Sadly, the sort of flaw you would expect from the "New York smart set", with a lack of feel for flyover country.  (The sort of thing that Michael Wolffe would gig his compatriots for, despite himself being about the epitome of the NY media crowd, but at least recognizing it.)  You wouldn't see Steinbeck fuck up that piece of Americana.  Reading the Grapes of Wrath, you can taste the dries up soil on your lips.  *roar*


 * the part of: cut


 * As an aside, it's interesting about the madam capturing top billing. I have seen a production of South Pacific where the Polynesian mother was so well done (so fun and outrageous) that she really captures the play versus the goody two shoes younger woman.  Maybe if they had embraced this, it would have worked better.  Donno,


 * settled for -> settled on


 * itinerant prostitute: would call her the love interest or somehting like that.  Phrasing as is, slowed me down a second, and we called her a whore enough anyhow.  Plus it's not clear if she really is one.
 * At this point, we are really discussing characters from the novel, as the play is not fully written. There is no doubt Suzy is a prostitute in the novel, I'm sure you'd agree.  She goes to the Bear Flag and applies for a job.  It is later that Hammerstein fudges the issue.


 * self-financing: was this really the only one like that?

REHEARSALS AND TRYOUTS


 * Start a new para at "After rehearsals began" (it's a different main subject and topic, and each is long enough on own)


 * in a note: cut


 * are glossed over -> were glossed over

PLOT: fine

ACT 1


 * mistakenly named by mother -> cut


 * (part of) -cut
 * It's the best way I can summarize this. The dialogue makes it clear they got in late, and Millicent was drunk and so nothing happened.  Hammerstein trying to play it clean again.  This is the man who was shocked when the idea of having Joe Cable shirtless at the start of a scene to imply he and Liat had sex was put to him: "OK, let me get accustomed to it."
 * I would go ahead and say she passed out drunk there after a date, then. As is, the "part of" still left me thinking they were shacking up and then confused me and slowed me down.  I think letting us know what the exact status is, is helpful and "interesting".  If the added content makes you chop a long sentence in two, that's fine.  I just think the reader fastens in on these sort of human interest things.TCO (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * President of the United States: delink (obvious term and not an important concept for this article, a link you don't want clicked)
 * That is true. The horoscopes and Hazel feeling he has to learn to make hard decisions as a president-to-be play far more of a role in the novel, as you probably remember.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * ownership or not -> ownership

ACT 2


 * boiler pipe: is she actually in a boiler pipe or a boiler itself.  I find it impossible to think she is in a pipe and the novel's Wiki article refers to it as a boiler.  This may be how the character's refer to it and may have confused me when I read it (dim memory from 30 years ago).  Don't bog your article down, but I wonder if there is a slick way to deconfuse this for those like me that get a huh factor from knowing that none of the pipes on a boiler would be big enough to live in.
 * Really it is the boiler, though entry is through the pipe. Joe has to be played by a bigger man than Doc because it is mentioned Joe can't get in through the pipe and Doc does.  It is a pity R&H could not have found a way to use Joe's full name from the novel (Joseph and Mary Rivas).--Wehwalt (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * interesting parallel with the girl in the boiler and the boys in the shack.  If I'm a bum, I know I will move to Ocean Beach or Balboa Park.
 * Venice Beach for me!--Wehwalt (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Still seems like it could be a decent musical if they stuck more with the seamy side of the Steinbeck. Maybe R&H (or Steinbeck) estates should let someone take another crack at it.  Interesting that some of the material went into Cannery Row (especially as that was a little more Tortilla Flats esque, more eposidic, whereas ST has a strong plot).  The miss Piggy thing would work to, but more with the softer storyline.
 * Yes, Hammerstein did some lifting from Cannery Row, but I can't find a source which says this.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not important and maybe you got me anyhow, and were giving me new dope, but my point was that the film of Cannery Row lifts from the more plotted Sweet Thursday novel. At least according to WP.TCO (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

MUSICAL NUMBERS and PRODUCTION: no comments

MUSIC


 * unusually ->unusual


 * clarify what the cakewalk is with a parens dance or something like that in article. Keep the wikilink too.  But it's a little too easily confused with the colloquial term cakewalk (easy).
 * A cakewalk can be a melody/song as well, just like a waltz. In my view this is a place where it is hard to slow down for an elementary explanation.  Often the case in musical treatment sections, my colleague Brianboulton's musical analysis sections can be quite technical, because they need to be.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Second Mandelbaum sentence: simplify the thought and just say that he says X about the song, rather than noting the specialness.


 * Hischak: give his full name or mention his role (chronicler of RnH or whatever).  Had a huh factor.


 * Would make the whole last paragraph same tense (mixed now), probably past. Talking about the 1956 NYT article in present, in particular, gave a huh factor as I looked to the ref to see if it was a recent story.

RECEPTION


 * Suskin states: make past tense to agree with rest of para


 * Miss Kitty: give us a parenthetical or a note ("the madam from Gunsmoke").  I went to the link and it was definitely not quick to find her in the article.  Section link does not help either.  Actually if you can note what's special about her character (like is she gnarly, frisky, playful, motherly, what) would be helpful.  I did not see it in there and am not familiar with the TV show.
 * Me neither. She's the barkeeper by the way.  This is an offhand by H's grandson, although he is a musical scholar.  I will put in a parenthetical explaining her role.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

TCO (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that's everything. Thank you for the detailed review and praise. It is good having someone who knows Steinbeck's works do a review.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)