Wikipedia:Peer review/Rent (musical)/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for GA and would like some comments.
Thanks, Theking17825 22:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments
- From a review point of view this article presents several problems. It has had nearly 4,000 edits, over half from IPs. It has been worked on by hundreds of editors; the list of the top 50 editors shows that none have more than 88 edits and hardly any of the most prominent have been near the article in the last six months.
- The article continues to be edited frequently, generally by IPs. There is no evidence on the talkpage of co-operation between the multiple editors, whereby the article's problems could be identified and worked on. For example, a tag dated July 2009, drawing attention to the excessive length of the plot summary, is still in place although clearly much work has been done on this section.
- The PR nominator appears to have only one edit to the article. The reason given for the PR request is an intention to try for GA. I think that at present the article is some way from GA standard, and the full peer review would be more appropriate when much more of the necessary development work has been completed. I suggest the following steps:-
- Post the intention to work towards a GAN on the article's talkpage, and explore the possibility a building a group to work together on the article.
- Look for a well-developed musical or opera article that you can use as a model. There are very few of these at WP:GA - Hair (musical) is in my view far too long and over-detailed. There are more and better examples at WP:FAC among the mucicals, light operas and operas.
- Identify and agree on the areas which most require attention. After a quick scan through the article I would suggest the following for consideration: Drastically reduce the "Productions" section; Introduce a proper critical reception section; Get rid of the general listiness - at present we have (a)the infobox, (b) the La boheme/Rent comparison (c) List of musical numbers (d)Lists of main and minor characters (e) Cast list (f) Lists of actors (g) Lists of awards. All these distort the nature and appearance of the article. Suggest get rid of some of these and shorten/merge others
- Work needed on referencing. At present there are unreferenced paragraphs, unreferenced quotes, and at least one "unreliability" tag
- Consider whether you need the "Cultural impact" section, which at present contains what is mostly trivia.
Bearing in mind that peer review is intended for articles that have already undergone considerable development, I suggest that it brought back here for further review when these major concerns have been addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)