Talk:The Prince (play)

The Prince (play) is currently a Media and drama good article nominee. Nominated by SyntaxZombie (talk) at 05:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer.

Short description: 2022 play by Abigail Thorn

Shakespeare Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shakespeare, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of William Shakespeare on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShakespeareWikipedia:WikiProject ShakespeareTemplate:WikiProject ShakespeareShakespeare articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Theatre Low‑importance

	Theatre portal This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Gender studies Low‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles
Cleanup : edit to see
Collaborate : see /Collaboration
Copyedit : edit to see
Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender
Expand : edit to see
Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes
Merge : edit to see
Notability : edit to see
NPOV : edit to see
Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia
Photo : see Wikipedia requested photographs of gender studies
Split : History of feminism
Stubs : see Gender studies stubs
Translate : see /translation
Update : edit to see
Verify : Riot grrrl
Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention

LGBT studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Video timestamps[edit]

@SyntaxZombie: the Q&A and BTS are great sources to add, but is it possible for you to add timestamps for the claims they're used for here? It's a bit of a big ask to expect a reader to watch the whole videos through if they want to verify the information is correct. — Bilorv (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good idea. Implemented :) SyntaxZombie (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! — Bilorv (talk) 09:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plot[edit]

MOS:FILMPLOT recommends between 400 and 700 words for a plot summary, and I think that applies here as a filmed version of a play (and a good baseline for how many words we compress 2 hours or so of fiction into). We're currently at 736 words, so just a touch over. — Bilorv (talk) 10:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Prince (play)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: SyntaxZombie (talk · contribs) 05:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Averageuntitleduser (talk · contribs) 16:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail rocks! Excited to learn about the play. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SyntaxZombie: whoops, I was unaware of your inactivity. Please ping me in the next 3 or so days if you are still available for a review. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Averageuntitleduser hi, thanks for taking on the review! I'm around, just haven't done much editing in the last month or so :) —SyntaxZombie (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fabulous! I'll get on with it then. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written[edit]

A rather entertaining read, and the "Reception" section flows very nicely; I found few issues with it.

Use the full "William Shakespeare" at first mention in the lead, article, and infobox.
This plot section is a touch over the 700 words recommended by MOS:FILMPLOT. Consider looking it over to rephrase or further summarize certain ideas. Perhaps you could excise some words. This isn't a firm rule, but it will help the article's readability.
"Hotspur", "Prince Hal", and other characters may be useful links.
The explanatory note may not be necessary; the opening paragraph of MOS:GENDERID already advises us to use those pronouns.
Jen finds herself reunited with Sam, Hotspur finds herself at her home — should the comma should be a "while"? Also, out of curiousity, Hotspur is at home, but where do Jen and Sam reunite?
Consider reordering the "Production" section to make it more chronological, e.g. casting and director info in the second paragraph, previews before the premiere. This may also help with the short paragraph lengths.

Verifiable with no original research[edit]

Many sources appear reliable and the handful of interviews/behind the scenes seem reasonable for what they cite. BroadwayWorld's news coverage is churnalism at its worst, but its reviews and awards, as well as this author, seem to hold more weight. I'll accept it (though I did replace it in the "Production" section). The Latch and its publisher are throwing me off a bit, but they have consulted Thorn and I suppose are adequate enough for the production and background info.

Plots are presumably cited to the work, so the "Special Edition" cite may not be necessary.
Could you defend The Review Hub's inclusion? It no doubt seems to be reliable, but it doesn't seem very prominent.

Broad in its coverage[edit]

I've squeezed a bit more out of the existing ones, but the major sources are in use. There are also some good finds, namely Diva and Big Issue.

The "programme notes" sentence in the lead should also be in the article.
Their positivity was to be expected, but this PinkNews review has some good material. It could perhaps replace The Reviews Hub.
Would the Q&A and behind the scenes have any more specific info to offer about the writing or rehearsal process? It's great that you're not overrelying on them, but could you add at most one or two more sentences?

Neutral[edit]

No promotional tone. All opinions of the reviewers are attributed.

Stable[edit]

No recent content disputes or edit wars.

Illustrated[edit]

Standard infobox poster with a good fair use rationale.

Summary[edit]

I do apologize, I've been having a busy week, but I will finish this this up tomorrow! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your feedback, @Averageuntitleduser. I'm having a bit of a busy week myself, so this might take a little longer on my end as well. Apologies in advance!

Things I fixed so far:

Use the full "William Shakespeare"
Links to Hotspur and Prince Hal
I feel like the "Special Edition" citation should be in the article somewhere, right? You're probably right, though, I'll take it out for now
"Jen finds herself reunited with Sam, Hotspur finds herself at her home" changed to "...reunited with Sam and Hotspur..." Jen and Sam actually reunite at Hotspur's castle, too, just not with Hotspur or Lady Kate in the room.

Things I'll get to soon:

Reordering the "Production" section
Finding a place for the "programme notes" sentence to go
Incorporating more from the PinkNews review
Incorporating more from the Q&A and BTS

Things to discuss:

I've been meaning to rework the plot section. I removed a few more words and it is currently just below 700, but looking at some of the great summaries over in Wikipedia:WikiProject Film this should probably be much shorter; it contains a lot of unnecessary detail.
Regarding the explanatory note, I see what you are saying with MOS:GENDERID, but I hesitate to get rid of it completely. After watching the play for the first time, I wouldn't have been confident about which pronouns to use without the sources cited in the note. I was also anticipating that a well-intentioned volunteer might mistakenly change Hotspur's pronouns since she is misgendered about 10 times more than [antonym of misgendered] in the dialogue. But maybe that is a "cross that bridge on the talk page if we come to it" sort of a situation.
I don't think I would be able to defend including The Reviews Hub, most of the critical reception section comes from a bunch of work User:Bilorv did on the Abigail Thorn article. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abigail_Thorn&diff=prev&oldid=1125556569). I'll leave a comment on their user page in case they want to chime in (they have contributed a lot to this article as well).

—SyntaxZombie (talk) 05:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you point out, Averageuntitleduser, The Reviews Hub has an editorial team, no evidence of doing reviews for pay or undisclosed advertising, and a corrections policy. As a specialist publication within British/Irish theatre it's not too surprising we don't have an article on it. Based on the timing of their review I think they were invited to the press night performance of the play alongside the other publications included in the article. I think it's worth including but I wouldn't object to its removal if that's what other people want. — Bilorv (talk) 10:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]