Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/The King and I/1

The King and I[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: withdrawn

I believe this article should have been promoted GA in February, and that the reviewer was not applying WP:WIAGA but his subjective standards, and that the article should be a GA. Note that while I may make a few changes on request, the idea really isn't to make this a substitute GAN, but to seek the community's view on whether WP:WIAGA is fulfilled.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Wehwalt withdrew the nomination

To give a reason for the withdrawal, it became apparent that Ssilvers had added much unsourced information to the article. He objected to the removal, even though it was unsouced and a reader would be surprised should he check information against sources. Accordingly, I had no alternative than to withdaw it until I can check against sources and remove all unsourced statements, which I am in the course of doing. As I have gotten sufficient review at this level, any further review will take place elsewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

so I think the best, and quickest, course would simply be to renominate at WP:GAN, especially as so many changes have been made since the review. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was forced into the withdrawal, effectively, by Ssilvers adding material without regard to sources, yes, and as an admin I keep to a personal 1RR which puts me at a disadvantages faced with a determined adder of unsourced material. However, I'd still like opinions from the community as to whether it presently meets GA standards. Many thanks,--Wehwalt (talk) 08:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took a quick look at the article, the lead appears a little short, the plot section too long. If you want a review, then nominate at WP:GAN, there is no point in picking over the bones of a review that took place several months ago. You can check that you have met all of the good article criteria here. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, can you close this at my request?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to go on record, I disagree that Wehwalt's statements above are accurate. If there are any remaining unsourced or incorrectly sourced statements, what are they? However, I agree that the article is probably at least GA quality. I am not "a determined adder of unsourced material", and I ask Wehwalt again to stop these personal attacks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, then. What do you see as needs to be done for the article before it can move ahead?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some notable names that are mentioned in the article are missing from the table of Principal roles and notable performers. You had written: "I will do that last, so as to spare repeated effort." Other than that, I think you still planned to review the NYT reviews for those productions where we cite IBDB or BWW, because you preferred, if possible, to replace the remaining IBDB cites and BroadwayWorld cites with NYT cites (although the Theatre project consensus was that IBDB (as opposed to IMDB) and BWW are reliable sources). In some cases, a paragraph already cites to both the NYT and either IBDB or BWW; I can't see those NYT cites, but it is possible that the NYT article already covers the info that is cited to IBDB/BWW. You also stated "I also have part of an article pack still unexpended for the LA Times", so I guess you had intended to check that. Can we reduce the number of refs in the paragraph about the original London production so that it doesn't bristle with so many cites, or do you think it needs to repeat the same cites multiple times within the paragraph - perhaps by putting them at the end of the paragraph? Other remaining issues:

1981 tour: LA Times might tell us is whether there were other notable actors over the course of such a long tour. You had planned to check this.
Green briefly discusses the "theme" of the show, which ought to be added to the discussion. The article, in general, ought to more clearly discuss the treatment of the social/racial themes, but that could be addressed after GA.

That's all I remember as being outstanding. Jezhotwells suggests above that the Lead could be a bit longer, and I would suggest adding a sentence about the Tuptim matter. Something like this: Anna brings matters to a head when she assists Tuptim, one of the King's slaves, who wishes to escape from the court with the man she loves. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I'll work on this in dribs and drabs. Unless someone wants to conom this will have to wait behind three coin articles I have ready for a turn at FAC so there is no hurry if you come up with more stuff so I will probably run it through both GA and PR first. Besides, TCO, who was interested in seeing a more popular R&H pushed forward, is gone until 31 May.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per Jezhotwells' suggestion, I have attempted to shorten the plot summary a bit. See what you think and revise as you think appropriate. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reassessment has been withdrawn and archived, so it would be best to continue at the article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.