Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is very well sourced and very well developed. It is also a nice candidate for a
WP:GOODARTICLE if we expand it by using the given references. —
Ahnoneemoos (
talk)
09:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Doing... Hi, I will review this article for you just might take a little while. It is great to have more articles about theaters on Wikipedia and you have a good start here. Just by quickly looking at the article I can give you two things that will help. First of all the box at the top of the article needs to be dealt with, and secondly take a look at the automated tips in the toolbox here for some standard fixes. I'll work on reviewing some more later today--
Found5dollar (
talk)
15:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Review – This section is under review or has been partially reviewed by
User:Found5dollar.
Ok so here we start...
Infobox
Lead
Notable members
Productions
Other
In general there are a lot of facets of this organization that this article does not touch on. it would be great to get a fully rounded picture of what the Toronto Light Opera Association was. Good luck with flushing out the article more and if you have any questions feel free to ask me.
Reviewed by -- Found5dollar ( talk) 00:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Question: Is this the right place to add comments about this review by the creator of the page? Or should I add them on the reviewer's talk page? —
Anne Delong (
talk)
19:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Found5dollar, for your insight. It has been very helpful.
I removed the Bill Wright link. There is no page about this Bill Wright at this time. I'm not sure how that got there.
Red links: Some of these people should have a page; it's hard to tell which just yet.
Info: User Ahnoneemoos added the infobox template. I'll pass the buck here....
Lead: I'm working the date in as suggested. Some of those excess links were added by overly enthusiastic contributers; I've removed some of them, but they might come back... I agree about the "renown" comment, which was added by an opera enthusiast, and I'll tone it down.
Your comment about not putting citations in the lead paragraph is interesting. I guess I was afraid if I didn't justify everything someone would delete the article. I'll see if I can move the citations later in the article.
Notable members section: I think I have improved this with information about more of the principal players.
Productions:
I've combined the duplicate sections into one compromise format.
I certainly plan to add new information to this section. The newspaper in Toronto which had the most theatre news has never been digitized or indexed, and it's an hour's drive to the nearest spot where I can see the microfilm, so this will not happen at once.
Changing the title to "history" is a good idea; that will help me move some of the citations out of the lead paragraph.
External Links - I felt it was important to explain why I had so many references that couldn't be viewed by others. I put this in a section called "Notes", and another user told me that this was incorrect and added them as external links. Is there a better way to put it? Or should I move this information to the talk page?
I will keep trying to find out more of the details that you would like to see. Maybe I'll find a Toronto resident to help me.
— Anne Delong ( talk) 02:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
{{
citation needed}}
. —
Ahnoneemoos (
talk)
04:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment:. The use of "high praise" and "renowned" does not constitute
WP:BIAS in this article since the association was called "an excellent organization" by the
Toronto Daily Star (see references). It also only took them 6 years from being formed to receive such a review, which constitute a few years and establishes their renown. It's just
WP:COMMONSENSE of adding 1+2=3. Regarding red links, see
WP:REDLINK. It is not only encouraged but necessary. —
Ahnoneemoos (
talk)
04:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | A Wikipedian has requested to the members of WikiProject Opera for their input on this matter. |
Comment: You might want to think about using
Template:Infobox theatre instead of the
choir infobox as this is a theater troupe, not a choir... in fact the more I look at the parameters in the infobox I am almost positive it is not right for what this article is for. --
Found5dollar (
talk)
00:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Discussion ongoing...
I looked into {{
Infobox theatre}}
and the problem is that template is more for the building per se. I have been looking around and the only infobox that comes close to this article is {{
infobox choir}}
, {{
infobox musical artist}}
, and {{
Infobox organization}}
. However, I can create a template for {{
infobox ensemble}}
which would cover these kind of articles and others. What exactly should I put on it? I'm not familiar with these topics, I'm more of a politics guy. —
Ahnoneemoos (
talk)
14:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
{{
infobox theatre company}}
might be a good idea. Another option would be to include more parameters to "theatre", to cover the company aspects, --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
14:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC){{
div col}}
We should then have a separate section called "Productions" that lists SOLELY the productions and their years. What do you guys think? —
Ahnoneemoos (
talk)
15:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I would like to get rid of the column format. I found three more reviews today on microfilm at the Toronto Reference library, so I will be adding more information to each year. The Repertoire box makes the columns even narrower, particularly for people who don't have high resolution screens.
Also, I was asked of there were negatives comments from reviewers that should be mentioned to offset the "praise". I know it's a problem that the references are not on line, but in the three reviews that I have just found there was not one negative comment, only more praise. Either the reviewers were very easy to please, or these productions were very well done. — Anne Delong ( talk) 04:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Is the infobox question settled? If so, I would like to change the "key people" Some of the people in that section are notable for things that they did after leaving the organization, so they aren't "key". Instead I would add the stage director Alfred Kidney, and the pianist Winnifred Smith Stewart, since they were vital to every production. — Anne Delong ( talk) 04:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Wow! I keep waking up in the morning to find all of these changes. I take it that most of the people who have taken an interest in this page are not from Ontario. The page looks much better after Voceditenore's edits. A question: From reviews and programs, I now have the names and parts played of the principal players in a number of the productions. Is it appropriate to add this much detail? — Anne Delong ( talk) 13:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
To be notable in opera, is it enough to have played in many productions (for example, in the article Bert Scarborough played in at least thirty productions over 42 years.) Or would he need to have played principal parts? — Anne Delong ( talk) 18:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is very well sourced and very well developed. It is also a nice candidate for a
WP:GOODARTICLE if we expand it by using the given references. —
Ahnoneemoos (
talk)
09:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Doing... Hi, I will review this article for you just might take a little while. It is great to have more articles about theaters on Wikipedia and you have a good start here. Just by quickly looking at the article I can give you two things that will help. First of all the box at the top of the article needs to be dealt with, and secondly take a look at the automated tips in the toolbox here for some standard fixes. I'll work on reviewing some more later today--
Found5dollar (
talk)
15:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Review – This section is under review or has been partially reviewed by
User:Found5dollar.
Ok so here we start...
Infobox
Lead
Notable members
Productions
Other
In general there are a lot of facets of this organization that this article does not touch on. it would be great to get a fully rounded picture of what the Toronto Light Opera Association was. Good luck with flushing out the article more and if you have any questions feel free to ask me.
Reviewed by -- Found5dollar ( talk) 00:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Question: Is this the right place to add comments about this review by the creator of the page? Or should I add them on the reviewer's talk page? —
Anne Delong (
talk)
19:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Found5dollar, for your insight. It has been very helpful.
I removed the Bill Wright link. There is no page about this Bill Wright at this time. I'm not sure how that got there.
Red links: Some of these people should have a page; it's hard to tell which just yet.
Info: User Ahnoneemoos added the infobox template. I'll pass the buck here....
Lead: I'm working the date in as suggested. Some of those excess links were added by overly enthusiastic contributers; I've removed some of them, but they might come back... I agree about the "renown" comment, which was added by an opera enthusiast, and I'll tone it down.
Your comment about not putting citations in the lead paragraph is interesting. I guess I was afraid if I didn't justify everything someone would delete the article. I'll see if I can move the citations later in the article.
Notable members section: I think I have improved this with information about more of the principal players.
Productions:
I've combined the duplicate sections into one compromise format.
I certainly plan to add new information to this section. The newspaper in Toronto which had the most theatre news has never been digitized or indexed, and it's an hour's drive to the nearest spot where I can see the microfilm, so this will not happen at once.
Changing the title to "history" is a good idea; that will help me move some of the citations out of the lead paragraph.
External Links - I felt it was important to explain why I had so many references that couldn't be viewed by others. I put this in a section called "Notes", and another user told me that this was incorrect and added them as external links. Is there a better way to put it? Or should I move this information to the talk page?
I will keep trying to find out more of the details that you would like to see. Maybe I'll find a Toronto resident to help me.
— Anne Delong ( talk) 02:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
{{
citation needed}}
. —
Ahnoneemoos (
talk)
04:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment:. The use of "high praise" and "renowned" does not constitute
WP:BIAS in this article since the association was called "an excellent organization" by the
Toronto Daily Star (see references). It also only took them 6 years from being formed to receive such a review, which constitute a few years and establishes their renown. It's just
WP:COMMONSENSE of adding 1+2=3. Regarding red links, see
WP:REDLINK. It is not only encouraged but necessary. —
Ahnoneemoos (
talk)
04:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | A Wikipedian has requested to the members of WikiProject Opera for their input on this matter. |
Comment: You might want to think about using
Template:Infobox theatre instead of the
choir infobox as this is a theater troupe, not a choir... in fact the more I look at the parameters in the infobox I am almost positive it is not right for what this article is for. --
Found5dollar (
talk)
00:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Discussion ongoing...
I looked into {{
Infobox theatre}}
and the problem is that template is more for the building per se. I have been looking around and the only infobox that comes close to this article is {{
infobox choir}}
, {{
infobox musical artist}}
, and {{
Infobox organization}}
. However, I can create a template for {{
infobox ensemble}}
which would cover these kind of articles and others. What exactly should I put on it? I'm not familiar with these topics, I'm more of a politics guy. —
Ahnoneemoos (
talk)
14:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
{{
infobox theatre company}}
might be a good idea. Another option would be to include more parameters to "theatre", to cover the company aspects, --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
14:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC){{
div col}}
We should then have a separate section called "Productions" that lists SOLELY the productions and their years. What do you guys think? —
Ahnoneemoos (
talk)
15:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I would like to get rid of the column format. I found three more reviews today on microfilm at the Toronto Reference library, so I will be adding more information to each year. The Repertoire box makes the columns even narrower, particularly for people who don't have high resolution screens.
Also, I was asked of there were negatives comments from reviewers that should be mentioned to offset the "praise". I know it's a problem that the references are not on line, but in the three reviews that I have just found there was not one negative comment, only more praise. Either the reviewers were very easy to please, or these productions were very well done. — Anne Delong ( talk) 04:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Is the infobox question settled? If so, I would like to change the "key people" Some of the people in that section are notable for things that they did after leaving the organization, so they aren't "key". Instead I would add the stage director Alfred Kidney, and the pianist Winnifred Smith Stewart, since they were vital to every production. — Anne Delong ( talk) 04:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Wow! I keep waking up in the morning to find all of these changes. I take it that most of the people who have taken an interest in this page are not from Ontario. The page looks much better after Voceditenore's edits. A question: From reviews and programs, I now have the names and parts played of the principal players in a number of the productions. Is it appropriate to add this much detail? — Anne Delong ( talk) 13:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
To be notable in opera, is it enough to have played in many productions (for example, in the article Bert Scarborough played in at least thirty productions over 42 years.) Or would he need to have played principal parts? — Anne Delong ( talk) 18:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)