Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/The King and I/archive1

Using this page for TCO review so I can use headers and templates. If other use of the page is needed, just indent the headers. If that still makes people unhappy, just move all the text to the article talk section or a subpage or whatever.

I started looking at the page in the morning and then it was getting edited. So, you will have to figure out the comments versus old version. Printed a copy at 1534, CST, for reference. Did not do the whole diff thingie. :)

General comments
My comments are more a general review of the article as an outsider than versus some reference standard for the star-granting. Take it as you will and implement what you agree with, what you think benefits the reader.

The topic is a wonderful one! What a great play, movie, story. And Yul! Also, very popular with readers (30,000+ views per month). Many people will come here to learn more about the play from having seen it or seen the movie. You serve them well.

I really didn't have the time to get into checking content or sources or the like, but you seem to have a reasonable list of books including some relevant biographies.

I notice shorter sentences than in the past, kudos. These play articles are "hard" in the amount of names of characters, actors, songs, etc. So it is best to treat them almost as technical topics, where you need to ovecome the intrinsic complications by simple writing. That said, the paras are often way too long even just for a "easy topic". Please go through and make more breaks. You should almost never have more than 8 sentences and I am finding paras with 16-17! Also, there are a few sections where the structure of the topics needs some work (going from A to B, then back to A, then back to B.)

None of this is meant to bring you down...it is WAY, WAY harder to compose than to criticize and it is way better than I could do.

Images
1. This is a way, way better image than the Ten commandments one. Correct story, shows bald head, even shows cross-legged! Should be displayed LARGE (given the composition has two people in it). If there is some scaredy-ness of copyright, then take it through the Commons VP-copyrights (those guys are amazing), or research the source. If you are too scared to use it, then run it through deletions. (Same applies with the other image that Ss asked about.)




 * I put this one in next to the TV adaptation description - looks OK Wehwalt? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it is a copyvio. Judging by what I can tell from the description page, it is from a press kit, which is not publication to my mind as it is not available to the public. I would remove it.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It appears to have been published in at least one newspaper?: See this -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * By 1972, newspapers routinely had copyright notices, and I think the lack of a copyright notice in the newspaper only would affect images taken by the newspaper itself, not those by networks and wire services. Would the famous shot of, say, the Vietnamese officer killing the man be taken out of copyright because it happened to be reprinted in some obscure newspaper without copyright notice in 1977? No, because that one is not on the copyright holder.  If it was printed in, say, a newsletter issued by CBS without copyright notice, that's quite different.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll take it out again. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll post it here rather than underneath the question that you asked but I rather doubt that the image of Brynner and Egger qualifies as fair use. It's a nice shot granted but it doesn't have very much to do with the play. The reader won't be edified about the subject by looking at that image. But let's see what my image hunt turns up tomorrow.Wehwalt (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)




 * If I recall, someone said the source info etc is not adequate for this image of Lawrence and Brynner. Is that right, Wehwalt? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

2. Aaaagh!! Why did you get rid of the very nice picture of the King and son for the diptych thingie? That thing is showed WAY TOO SMALL to see anything and besides has a bunch of irrelevant content (versus the two person shot). Oh...and please put it RIGHT UNDER the section header. (No MOS-kowtowing [notice how I mixed that word in?] please.) Really, FAT photos look bad under a section header, but thin ones look great. (see the Agricola pic in the history section of Fluorine, or the coyote in Olympic marmot). Putting it square under stops it from breaking the next section header and messing with the photo in there (which could be moved right if you want...the whole facing in thing is silly and that guy is just barely eyes left).





3. Rest of the pics look good, kudos. Recommend to have CentPacRR or Fallschirm look at all the photos and see if any need tweaks for presentation (I think they are fine, but just run past them.) In particlar that one of the King and son might could do with a little magic contrast.

4. I didn't go through them for rights and the like, but any of the image improvement guys will give you a good review. There is one guy at Commons-copyright VP (hint, hint...use this resource!) who is incredible...lawyer and knows all the minutia.

5. Add alt text. Just write a description of the image so blind people can "see" it. For the sighted, it causes no issue. Don't listen to people who say it should be terse. I went back to the sources and they did not back up the people who were saying that.


 * I am going to crop the stereoscopic image. I actually did but it didn't upload.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If you are talking about that diptych one, it just sucks. You can't see anything.  I don't care if you crop it.  Use the other one.  If it is some rights scaredycattedness, then just run the thing through deletions (if it should leave Wiki) or get the right info to allow using it (if it may stay on Wiki)TCO (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I put it back in; I think both fit fine in the section and are interesting together, especially because of Chulalongkorn's age in the two photos, and the difference in dress - it is apparent that the court was westernized a great deal between the two image dates. Wehwalt, can you remind me if the Brynner/Lawrence image was nixed?   BTW, we have now added alt text to all captions.  Thanks.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Likely copyvio. Perhaps I can find evidence it is PD but for right now I would not include.  Just because something is on commons doesn't mean we can rely on it in a FA, and it is not the responsiblity of FA writers to nom for deletion for incomplete information (i.e., it might be PD, we just can't prove it.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

[Left]We've found online a copy of the souvenir program that they peddled at the St. James to unsuspecting playgoers. It lacks a copyright notice, so I've uploaded a few images and will wait to consult with Ssilvers before doing more along that path. However, I think it answers your concern, TCO.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The two programs you've taken images from are super. I've added some alt text to the new ones.  I don't love the Yul image, though, because you can't see his face very well, so I hope we find a better one.  I also would love to use the "Shall We Dance?" image above -- I notice that it was in one of these programs, though in a smaller format.  Does that release it to the public domain?  We have more space for images down near the Reception section, so if you see another image or two that you like, I'd say add it, by all means.  I think we should add a program cover that shows Lawrence dominating the billing.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is in the PD, so feel free to replace with the better image. I had given a hasty look but did not see anything that matched, well done.  I'll poke through the programs as well, perhaps something will look good.  I was wondering if we should include the dancers in the principle roles table.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. No, I would not include the dancers in the principal roles table.  Even the King Simon and Eliza dancers are only featured briefly in the show.  They are very unlikely to be notable (we only know of three who are even arguably notable, and we mention them), but if any more are notable, they can simply be mentioned in the Productions section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I went and looked at them. The program books (available for purchase during the run) were without copyright notice, including the one from the 1977 run.  The Playbill from the 1977 run (dated January, 1978) did have a copyright notice.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Table
Good content and I appreciate that you used a table as a way to organize info (very helpful for someone scanning). Please just get a table expert and brush the thing up though. Rexxs, MissMJ, MatSci, any of the others from my old page). If Rexxs does it, put up with the making it nice for blind people but make sure he knows what really you want out of him is making it "clean" for sighted people.


 * The last column why are the names not in alpha order (either by last or first name)? If it is chronological or importance, then explain this...really I think alpha order by last name does more for us since you have a separate column for the originals.
 * Good idea. Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Make it wider (full screen).
 * I agree, but I have no idea how to do this. Wehwalt, do you?  -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Make the column for description skinnier (relatively) and the last column fatter (relatively).
 * I agree, but I have no idea how to do this. Wehwalt, do you? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I do not, and I'm not convinced of the need. However, I suggest that one of the people above be consulted outside of the scope of the FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I figured out how to do this one, but I still don't know how to make something "full screen" width for different monitor configurations. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't like the blue link text on background of light blue/grey or whatever that thing is. (This may be just something I am noticing about Wiki with time off from it.)
 * I think it looks fine, unless you have examples of ones you think would be better here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Multimedia
1. Sound:  where is the sound clip? This is a musical! Give me a 30 second clip of Getting to Know You. If it needs a fair use rationale, then write one. (They are allowed, just follow the rules and write the brief.)


 * Someone did this in the Hair (musical) article, but I have no idea how to do it, and that editor is no longer active on Wikipedia. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

2. Really, there should be a video clip, but they are unwatchable on Wiki (not supporting Internet Explorer, hello???)  So I give you a pass on that one. ;-)

Side and bottom matters
1. Infobox is fine, good. You even have an image which has a natural "vertical document" shape to it.

2. Templates are fine and I like that they are all hidden.

3. Categories:  please remove the one for inter-racial affairs (yeah there is a tension, but only a kiss on the hand of a dying man in terms of real action). Also remove the "directed by Robbins" (if he did direct a version it would have been a re-run and neither this article nor his seem to mention it). Robbins was a choreoagrapher, here.
 * Good points. Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

High level coverage and organization
All in all really good. The standard organization makes you hit all the important aspects and things are in the right places. The subjects which are a little bit in different sections (the reception, the lead's illness) are appropriately handled and unavoidable.

1. One of two things that is missing is a bit more about the gate, the take, number of eyeballs, etc. I know you probably can't get everything, but please please...research this and fasten together some snippets. There must be some stray factoids, estimates, comparisons, etc.
 * Yes, we are keeping our eyes open for this sort of information, but we have read all the major sources about this musical, and I think we have included all of the info that we've seen about number of performances, attendance and box office. Unlike films, where you can just look on box office mojo, this kind of info is not so easy to get. I think we make it clear that the show was a hit and that there were lots of successful revivals, recordings and adaptations, and that it is still popular today. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

2. The other thing is I want more explanation of how rights were needed (or not) for the play versus either the book or the previous movie. We know it is a derivative work...did they have to pay?
 * We say that Lawrence's agent obtained rights to the book. I am sure that the cost was relatively trivial, as no one knew, at the time, that the show would be such a big success.  The previous movie does is not relevant: if R&H had NOT been able to get rights, one of the sources would have said so, so it is clear that they did not have any trouble obtaining the right to dramatize the book in the ways that they did.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

3. The section on revivals has a lot of detail of different names of actors and such. Don't delete it (I know someone did a lot of work to gather it and it is useful and is even subordinated towards the end). That said, anything you can do to make it more bearable, please do so. One thing I know is more para breaks. But maybe there are some other tricks. Please think about it...
 * Yes, we will certainly keep trying to make this read as smoothly. I personally think that anyone who is reading the Productions section is looking for this type of information, and that the people who don't want to read these names will just skip the Productions section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Not looked at in detail
1. Wikilinking: Seems pretty decent. I did not do an anal check of all the rules (first usage, side by sideing, etc). In general looks good and can tell someone went through it. I will call out a few here and there where I would prefer to remove the blue speed bump.

2. I'm not going to do the comma by comma checks either. Just a few as I see them. But in any case is slick writing, much better than the norm.

3. References:  Seems to have those fancy templates and a section for books and then page number callouts and all that. Not going to look at all the minutia as to the eye it seems very fancy and slick.


 * Don't worry, there are plenty of people reviewing this stuff. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Lead
Little more work is needed on the lead (after captions of figures, this is the most read text).

1. You might end up wanting to use your "4th para break". not pushing it, but just...leads are hard since we have to cover so much and different topics, yet still write unified paragraphs...AND have a first sentence of the lead that summarizes entire article. If in doubt, the extra break is helpful for organization.

2. The last two sentences of the first para belong down with the third para (then you have a unified para on how the play did). You can probably chop that last para then into two paras (early and later runs).

3. Second sentence is a bit long. I think you can cap the sentence after Leonowens and then combine the content about King's name and the 1860s into the fictional account (third sentence).

4. Delink governess.

5. Add a parenthetical (Thailand) for Siam and then get rid of the parenthetical later in the article.

6. Don't link Rodgers and Hammerstein (as a group) twice within the lead. Pick one spot or t'other.

7. Third para, cut the parentheticals for Lawrence and Bryner (since it was an immediate hit and you told us the lead actor and actress already).

8. Cut "regularly".


 * I must admit that I disagree with these points. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Historical
1. I actually agree with linking Welsh (since the whole thing is amusing to think of Welsh people as swarthy).

2. My personal preference is not to re-wikilink (Mongkut for example) after the lead (follow a strict first time policy). This was actually "the rules" before someone snuck in a more links type policy. But do what you want...

3. Aargh...and then you have it in the caption. that used to not be policy either. Hate the blue bump as a distractor versus the image. Just preference though...and if you want to conform...

4. Delink "King of Siam". Reader will get there from Mongkut and why do we need a direct link to the CONCEPT of a monarchy of Thailand in general?

5. cut the comma between influence and in.

6. And the one between nation and involved.

7. Delink missionaries (a general article on the concept of missionaries through all ages and lands?  Why send the reader there?)

Creation
1. The first sentence is too long. It has 46 words including a lot of blue and names and parenthetical phrases.

2. Delink vignettes (it is a normal word).

3. Cut "episodes, showing "

3. Cut "featured in the vignettes"

4. 4th sentence "they" should be changed to Rodgers and Hammerstein (antecendant is not clear, since we just talked about Anne and the King).

4. 11 sentence para. Needs a break. Do it with the sentence talking about star vehicle (different subject anyhow and therefore another reason to break).

5. "Lawrence's temperament was another concern: though she could not sing like one, the star was known to be capable of diva-like behavior." This sentence is too cute and a distraction. You told us the sentence before she was a lousy singer and now you have to repeat it as a parenthetical? It is an unneeded complication to use the term diva (for behavior) for a women who did not have the singing ability of one. Also, it feels like you are just trying to sneak that word in there (and then linking it...sigh). Instead of that mess...give me some CONTENT. What had the lady done before? What sets had she stormed off, etc? Some supporting example.

6. "In spite of this, they admired her acting – what Hammerstein called her "magic light", a compelling presence on stage, and they agreed to write the show." First, I think you need another dash before the final clause (the Hammerstein remark is interrupting a thought structure, rather than being a justaposition.) Second, I would cut "a compelling prescence on stage" or if must keep it, move it back to replace "acting". 7. Replace "the star's" with "her".

8. Replace "authors" with "producers". Or RnH. But...authors is strange to use in this context which is really about production, not writing.

9. Move "In an interview for The New York Times, Hammerstein indicated that he wrote the first scene before leaving for London and the West End production of Carousel in mid-1950; he wrote a second scene while in the British capital.[15]" to be the second sentence of its para. This will give more of a flow from beginning to end of the play. Also, the last sentence in your new para will be very powerful.

10. This is the section that needs work on the structure. It is not clear how we are jumping from Hammerstein to Rodgers and back again. Hmmm...OK.

A. Move "With Rodgers laid up with back trouble, Hammerstein completed most of the book before many songs were set to music.[20]" to be the sentence in front of the door in to sentence.

B. Move the choreagrophy stuff para to the end. (after RnH).

C. Move the last para to be right BEFORE the para on the issues with Thai speech and music. It is a really cool story about H's frustration with R, and maybe you wanted it at end for emphasis...but this whole section lacks a clear thought structure from para to para. If you move it like I say, then it is a natural progression from H to RnH.

11. Whole section seems a little bit light on the musical writing part. I guess it is a little hard to describe how someone writes notes, versus constructs a story. Still...would think we would get a little more info on R's work as we had with H.

12. "stars rather than hire them, and engaging". I think you should either cut the comma or if it stays add one in front of rather. Or if you really want to be punchy add a period after them and start a new sentence with engaging. ;-)

13. "The pair":  start the para instead with "RnH" (stronger to name them at the beginning, "pair" takes a second to think about when right in the front expecially as we have not really transitioned the topic off of H alone, yet.

14. "However, the King is presented more sympathetically in the musical than in the book or the 1946 film, as the torture and burning at the stake of Lady Tuptim and the man she is accused of having sex with are omitted.[19]"  This sentence belongs better earlier on with the para where we talk about plot deviations from the book (rather than this speech patterns para). (after moving it, cut the however).

15. Work on that sentence a little also, please. It feels kind of long and wandery and the "omitted" is very strange so far back. Maybe replace "the man she is accused of having sex with" with "alleged lover". And then change the structure somehow. Something like: Rodgers and Hammersein portrayed the King more favorably than Landon's book or movie had. The musical omitted a scene where Tuptim and her alleged lover were tortured and burned at the stake. (note this gets rid of some passive mood also.)

16. Add a para break starting at "Producer Leland Hayward, who had worked with the duo on South Pacific, approached Jerome Robbins to choreograph a ballet for "The Small House of Uncle Thomas"." It's an 8 sentence para, which is tolerable, but two 4-ers will serve us fine and given that we shifted subjects from Sharraf to Robbins, it is a natural break. Also, this area where we lose the focus on the duo is just a little more boring, so shorter paras keep us engaged.

17. The last (before you move it) para has 11 sentences. :-(  Not sure how to really break it (or even shorten it) as it is all one story...and a great one.  Maybe think about it.  Whatever you do, don't join up the sentences into more compounds.  (Rather have same amount of text in the para and at least short sentences).

18. "past, and"  cut this comma.

19. Actualy, I think I found the solution to 17. Make the within para lame-o dialogue ""I was dazzled by the splendor/Of Calcutta and Bombay" and "The celebrities were many/And the parties very gay/(I recall a curry dinner/And a certain Major Grey)."[25]" to be one of those quote thingies. Will force a para break and then also set off those lines better. something like:

The pair discussed having an Act 1 musical scene involving Anna and the King's wives. The lyrics for that scene proved to be very difficult for Hammerstein to write. He first thought that Anna would simply tell the wives something about her past, and wrote such lyrics as

I was dazzled by the splendor/ Of Calcutta and Bombay... The celebrities were many/ And the parties very gay/ (I recall a curry dinner/ And a certain Major Grey).[25]

Eventually, Hammerstein decided to write about how Anna felt, a song which would not only explain her past, but also serve to establish a bond with Tuptim and lay the groundwork for the conflict that devastates her relationship with the King.[25] "Hello, Young Lovers", the resulting song, was the work of five exhausting weeks for Hammerstein. He finally sent the lyric to Rodgers by messenger and awaited his reaction. Hammerstein considered the song his best work and was anxious to hear what Rodgers thought of it, but no comment came from Rodgers. Pride kept Hammerstein from asking. Finally, after four days, the two happened to be talking on the phone about other matters, and at the end of the conversation, Rodgers stated, very briefly, that the lyric was fine. Josh Logan, who had worked closely with him on South Pacific, found the usually unflappable Hammerstein extremely upset, and the lyricist poured out his feelings to Logan, before suddenly stopping. It was one of the few times that Hammerstein and Rodgers did not display a united front.[26]

20. "past, but"  (I think) cut this comma.

21. "her relationship" -> Anna's relationship. (Be careful with antecedants. You referred to Tuptim right before "her".  It is much better to repeat the characters names than to be unclear about a pronoun.  (I think the whole Wikithing about "avoid repetition" is a little wrong anyhow...but don't get me started.)

22. "with him on South Pacific, found the usually unflappable Hammerstein"  switch the him and the Hammerstein (remember we had Rodgers the sentence before...the whole antecedent thingie). You can move the "usually unflappable" descriptor to be in front of lyricist, to make it work. Or move "lyricist" back where H is or...;-)

23. Delink World War II.

24. Please make the explanation of the "book" (musical theater term) clearer. First, it's inherently confusing. Second, we have an actual book in the article! To fix this (1) give some parenthetical (libretto or script) after wikilinked book. Can even use scare quotes on script if it is not properly a script. (2) Wikilink to the SECTION called "book musicals" within the article on musical theater. That section has a GREAT explanation of the term book. But instead we are sending people to the general article on musical theater (and they are like WTF since the screen has no explanation of the term book, but just a whole article on musicals).

Casting and tryouts
1. Um...and I really hate the blue speed bumps in the Yul Brenner caption. You know that used to be against the rules and someone did one of those stealth change-o thingies to the MOS and snuck the opposite in. In any case, I prefer to keep focus on the image by having the minimum of brightness in the caption.

2. When I went to the "Lute Song" article, I found out that Bryner played an Oriental (and that it was a musical). Don't you think this is relevant? After all it is the fellow's Tartar appearance and Cossack carriage that sort of "made the role". If you are worried about some Wiki-OR kvetching than just sneak in the facts and let the reader draw the obvious conclusion (that playing a Chinese guy in a musical was not much of a stretch to playing a Thai guy in a musical).

3. "Brynner termed Rodgers' account "very picturesque, but totally inaccurate". He recalled that as an established television director (in CBS's Starlight Theatre, for example), he was reluctant to go back on the stage. His wife, his agent, and Martin finally convinced him to read Hammerstein's working script, and once he did, he was fascinated by the character of the King and was eager to do the project.[29][30]"

I would make the first sentence more emphatic by starting it with a "But" and making it a single sentence para (reacting to the quote). You really need to separate it from the "He recalled" blabla as the reader is expecting to hear Bryner talk about what he (really) did in tryouts, but instead the chatter is about him first getting interested in the role.

4. OK, here's whatcha need to do...move the two sentences about "he recalled" to be right after the period here:  "role.[27] Rodgers". This puts a proper time structure to the story. Mary suggested him to Rodgers...Yul got interested...then he tried out.

5. You should also put a para break after this period:  "high. With"

6. Cut "in costume" from the caption for Yul in Ten Commandments (I think we can see that he is in costume!)  Put it in the alt text for the blind people.

7. "Pre-rehearsal preparations began in the autumn of 1950. Hammerstein had wanted Logan to direct and co-write the book, as he had for South Pacific, but when Logan declined, Hammerstein decided to write the entire book himself. Instead of Logan, the duo hired John van Druten, who had worked with Lawrence years earlier, to direct. Sharaff wryly underlined a central incongruity in the musical, of a Victorian British governess finding herself in the midst of an exotic court, telling the press: "The first-act finale of The King and I will feature Miss Lawrence, Mr. Brynner, and a pink satin ball gown."[31] Mielziner's set plan was the simplest of the four Rodgers and Hammerstein musicals he had worked on, with one main set (the throne room), a number of front-stage drops (for the ship and Anna's room, for example) and the entire stage cleared for "The Small House of Uncle Thomas".[32]"

Struggling a little with the organization of this paragraph. The director/book thing, the Shaffer thing, the sets. Would maybe cut the Shaffer story as cute, but not really having a point. (Or if not, is it possible to develope the various separate topics more into standalone paras?)

8. I would move "to direct" to be closer to Logan (is hard to read with the parenthetical splitting Logan and his descriptor.  Or start the sentence with For director...

9. "The show was budgeted at $250,000 (US$2,240,000 in 2013 dollars) making it the most expensive Rodgers and Hammerstein production to that point, and prompting some mockery that costs exceeded even their expensive flop Allegro.[33] Additional investors included Josh Logan, Mary Martin, Billy Rose and Leland Hayward.[34] The children who were cast as the young princes and princesses came from a wide range of ethnic backgrounds, though none were Thai. Some of the young performers who were hired during the show's run were Puerto Rican or Italian.[35] Johnny Stewart was the original Prince Chulalongkorn but left the cast after only three months, replaced by Ronnie Lee. Sandy Kennedy was Louis, and Broadway veteran Larry Douglas played Lun Tha.[36][37]"

These are two totally different topics! Split the para into two. I don't care if they are short, but at least they will be unified.

10. Give some explanation that RnH were investors (were they the main ones?) as the reader does not understand "additional". Also was Lawrence an investor? Or how was she compensated for the rights she had acquired (if not with a stake)?

11. (US$2,240,000 in 2013 dollars) -> (over $2 million in 2013). It is strange to be using US at all as a descriptor (what someone thinks they were Singapore dollars) and in any case, if you did use them would use them on the first figure. Also a rounder number reads better and really is more justified given the accuracy issues with convertors.

12. Not sure an edit is needed, but did Doretta sing the entire score or just the female parts?

13. James Poling, a writer for Collier's who was allowed to attend the rehearsals, wrote of Lawrence practicing "Shall I Tell You What I Think of You?": -> James Poling, a writer for Collier's, wrote of Lawrence rehearsing the scene with "Shall I Tell You What I think of You". (It avoids repeating the word practice, which is confusing given how it is used within the quote...and is a shorter sentence.)

14.  I'm curious that it seems like we describe her practicing a song, but then the quote seems to refer to a whole scene.

15. Move the Brynner para down to right before the last one. Lawrence with Lawrence, Bryner with Bryner. Makes more sense that way than jumping back and forth (I guess for chronology).

16. "rehearsals, though no one"  Cut the comma, subordinating conjunction.

17. The stuff about cutting length is a different topic from Lawrence sucking so would add a break either before Leyland or before Additionally (and if so cut additionally).

18. Not clear to me if Leyland said it sucked in general or is more Lawrence criticism or because it was too long. Research this please so we can be clear on the inference.

19. The cut song, "Waiting", was -> Another cut was the song "Waiting", (needs a little more transition please...)

20. Para break before "After the cuts".

21. "song for her" is the her Thiang or Anna? I thought Getting to Know You was with Anna, but the antecedent would seem to be Lady Thiang.

22. (moved Bryner para) "tryouts, and" -> cut the comma

23. "Over thirty years later, Brynner regretted that there were not more tryout performances, feeling that the schedule did not give him an adequate opportunity to develop the complex role of the King. When he told this to Hammerstein and Rodgers, they asked what sort of performance they would get from him, and he responded, "It will be good enough, it will get the reviews."[44]"

This is a really cool story and shows Brynner a smart guy, but I can't understand the time sense of it. Did he regret 30 years later, but tell RnH before the reviews? Maybe something more like:

Over thirty years later, Brynner recalled regretting that there were not more tryout performances, feeling that the schedule had not given him an adequate opportunity to develop the complex role of the King. At the time, when he had to told this to Hammerstein and Rodgers, they asked what sort of performance they would get. Brynner responded, "It will be good enough, it will get the reviews."[44]

Or maybe you can just untangle the whole thing and drop the 30 years later issue.

Before the Broadway launch, Brynner told Rodgers and Hammerstein that he regretted there were not more tryout performances, feeling the schedule had not given him an adequate opportunity to develop the complex role of the King. The pair then asked him what sort of performance they would get. Brynner responded, "It will be good enough, it will get the reviews."[44]

On the other hand if the whole discussion happened in 1980, then be clear that RnH were questioning his ability to do OK in a revival performance.

--

I think that is all I can give you for now. Will be busy next few weeks. Please don't ask me to finish (or to review what you decide to do/not do). Would just be more going through the rest of the text the same way. Good luck and have fun.TCO (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Good luck to you in your time-consuming endeavors. We will look through the above and implement those which seem appropriate.  We will respect your wishes and not seek to discuss or ask you to revisit.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these detailed comments. We will work through them in the days ahead.  Super helpful, thanks!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for these. We have gone through them and made changes in response.  All the best!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)