Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/She Has a Name/archive3

:Nominator(s): Neelix (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a Canadian play that deals with human trafficking in Thailand. Although this is the third featured article candidacy for this article, the previous FACs took place more than a year and a half ago and, since then, I have done further work on this article and I have also seen several other articles through successful FACs, so I believe that both the article and I are better prepared to see a new FAC through successfully. I have reviewed the concerns raised in the previous FACs and I believe that they have been addressed. Neelix (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Image review

• File:She_Has_a_Name.jpg: suggest filling in the "n.a." parameters in the FUR
• Several images have "evidence" listed in the Permission field - the licensing template already links to that statement, there's no need to relink it, and if it is kept it shouldn't be called evidence because it doesn't demonstrate that these files have that license
• File:She_Has_a_Name_2011_-_Death.jpg: what is the licensing status of the set? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

::Thank you for the image review, Nikkimaria! I have filled in the "n.a." parameters in the FUR of She_Has_a_Name.jpg. I removed the word "evidence" from all of the relevant images, although I left the rest of the content in these sections because I thought that leaving them blank might make it look like there were no permissions. If you feel that the content of these sections should be further altered, please let me know. I have e-mailed Stephen Waldschmidt about the licensing status of the set depicted in She_Has_a_Name_2011_-_Death.jpg. Hopefully, he will respond soon; he has been very responsive to previous inquiries. Neelix (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

:::I heard back from Stephen Waldschmidt, and he was the one who painted the backdrop and designed the set. In retrospect, I should have known this already, as he is credited as the set designer already in the article. In any case, he was the one who released that image under the Creative Commons license, so there should be no issues with that image. Neelix (talk) 03:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Support. I think the article now meets the FA criteria. Great work David, and good luck with the rest of this nomination. A fine effort indeed. —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

{{hidden/FC|headerstyle=background:darkgreen;color:white|contentstyle=border:1px lightblue solid; padding:10px;|header=Resolved comments from —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

|content=I don't know so much about the proper MOS etc for plays so excuse me if I raise non-issues. I'll go through the body of the article first then come back to the infobox and lead at the end.

Background

• "Andrew Kooman first became aware of human trafficking while he was working for the nonprofit organization Youth With A Mission (YWAM) in southeast Malaysia". I suggest rewording to "Andrew Kooman, from Alberta, Canada, first became aware ...", We should make clear When we say Kooman "later realized that human trafficking also occurs in Canada" we should make it more obvious that we are talking about his home country. Perhaps reword to "Andrew Kooman, from Alberta, Canada, first became aware ..." or change "also occurs in Canada" to "also occurs in his own country, Canada. Or something like that
• "Kooman has spoken about cases where people have been trafficked into Calgary and Edmonton for prostitution, and said that sex workers may have been trafficked into Red Deer, his hometown, since it is also located along Alberta Highway 2." This is interesting but I'm not sure it's directly relevant to She Has a Name. Simply saying he realized human trafficking occurs in Canada is enough in my opinion.
• In the second paragraph, perhaps move the last sentence "To further ground the play in reality, Kooman researched human trafficking and met with survivors" to the beginning, and mention the Ranong incident as a specific part of this research.
• Third paragraph: Perhaps the "background" section as a whole would be stronger and more focused if we started the section with this paragraph. If we do this I think it works better with the first sentence ("Kooman had written other literary works ...") at the end of the paragraph. So the body of the article would start bang on focus by saying "She Has a Name was Andrew Kooman's first full-length play", then branch out and explain some of the background.
• Maybe this is an WP:ENGVAR issue, but shouldn't theatres generally have "the" before them? "The Royal Opera House"? "The Old Vic"? "The London Palladium"?
• Perhaps say the theatre's in Calgary. —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
• I would recommend trimming the fourth paragraph down a bit: specifically I would remove the part about it being at a justice conference in Michigan and trim down the passage with Waldschmidt to just say something like "Stephen Waldschmidt, one of [the?] Burnt Thicket Theatre's artistic associates, asked to read the script of She Has a Name and said he could not put it down. He was initially reluctant to attach himself to the play because of the immensity and ugliness of the issues therein, but ultimately worked with Kooman to expand it to a full-length play with an extra hour of material by the end of 2010. The result is a play that can be performed in anything from 90 minutes to two hours."
• "Waldschmidt directed the play's premiere, and Burnt Thicket Theatre served as the play's initial production company" You can change the second "the play's" to "its"
• I'd trim the image caption to just "She Has a Name was Andrew Kooman's debut play" or even just "Andrew Kooman, who wrote the play"

More soon —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Productions

Initial run

• "The stage premiere of She Has a Name was directed by Stephen Waldschmidt" We've said this in the last section.
• Is it really necessary to say when auditions took place? Also the reference for this doesn't say the auditions actually happened then, it just says that's when they were scheduled for.
• "Aaron Krogman was selected to portray Jason and the unnamed pimp, Sienna Howell-Holden to portray Mama, Glenda Warkentin to portray Marta, Denise Wong to portray Number 18, and Cari Russell to portray Ali" who are all of these characters? I would recommend moving the "Characters" and "Plot summary" sections up so they precede the "Productions" section. Otherwise it's kind of confusing to the uninitiated reader.
• "Both Wong and Russell said they become more emotionally involved in the play than they had originally anticipated, Howell-Holden said that the play changed her life, and Warkentin found acting in the play an emotional challenge and said that she did not realize the depth of the problem of human trafficking" I would lose this to tighten up the prose.
• "The troupe rehearsed for three weeks in Strathmore before the premiere" I'm not sure it's really necessary to mention this—it's kind of taken for granted that actors in a play rehearse
• "Performances ran on the centre's Motel stage between February 23 and March 5" The same problem as above—the source is a schedule from beforehand, not a confirmation afterwards that it actually happened. You can easily get around this by saying something like "Performances were scheduled for February 23 to March 5"
• "and people wanting to buy tickets at the door, sometimes numbering 20 or 30, had to be turned away" I would trim this. It is enough in my opinion just to say the performances were sold out.
• "where the play was performed until March 12" again, the same temporal problem with the refrencing.
• "The play drew an emotional reaction from the audience.[28][29] The most common audience responses were sadness and gratitude.[30]" In my opinion one of these two sentences would do—we don't need both.
• "Kooman was told that many of the audience members at the initial performances later responded to the play by talking with others about human trafficking, writing letters to their Members of Parliament, and doing other creative things on the subject." Was told by whom? Who could be aware of how "many" of the audience members reacted? Did they all know each other?
• "They also contacted Waldschmidt, sometimes up to a year later, with stories about how the play had continued to affect their lives" I find it strange that we should make seemingly hagiographic statements about audience reactions when, as the article stands, we haven't even talked about the play yet.
• "In order to finance" "In order" is almost always unnecessary—"To finance" means the same thing

2012 tour

• "directed by Stephen Waldschmidt" we've already mentioned him a few times so we can just say Waldschmidt
• "Warkentin returned to portray Marta, and Howell-Holden returned to portray Mama" how about "and Warkentin and Howell-Holden returned as Marta and Mama"
• "Despite the fact that She Has a Name is set in Southeast Asia, the producers deliberately cast actors who were not of Asian descent to avoid giving the impression that human trafficking is limited to Asia" Perhaps "To avoid giving the impression that human trafficking is limited to Asia, the producers deliberately cast actors who were not of Asian appearance." (it is possible for one to be of a certain ancestry without looking it, and the appearance is what's relevant here)
• Perhaps split this long paragraph after this sentence
• I would recommend making clear that the "London" we mention is London, ON and not England.
• "partway through the tour" you can contract this to "mid-tour" without loss of meaning
• "Red Dear"—typo
• Is it necessary to say exactly which theatre the production went to in each town? We already have the FA on the 2012 tour that discusses this.
• "non-audience members" You mean the cast, crew etc?
• "The purpose of these discussions was to raise awareness about human trafficking in Canada and elsewhere." I think you could easily incorporate this information into the previous sentence to tighten up the prose.
• I think it is going into too much detail to mention everybody who chaired and took part in these discussions. I recommend trimming it down a bit. We have the 2012 tour article so this information wouldn't be lost.
• I'd reword the second image caption here to mention the church at the beginning.
• "Cynthia Foster attended one of the performances during the tour, and she later went on to produce and direct the first school production of She Has a Name" perhaps "Cynthia Foster, who attended one of the performance during the tour, went to produce and direct the first school production" (it is obvious from context of what)

Performances in the United States

• "She and her sister had become passionate about the issue of human trafficking after having gotten involved with the organization Run for Courage," perhaps "She and her sister had become passionate about the issue of human trafficking as a result of their involvement with the organization Run for Courage"
• I don't think we need to say their mother thought God had led her to She Has a Name.
• " In order to have the rights to produce the play in the United States, FreeFall Stage made a special arrangement with the Playwrights Guild of Canada" The source just says it was "produced by special arrangement with the Playwrights Guild of Canada", not that this special arrangement was to allow it to be staged south of the border.
• ", who was born in Thailand, where she received a Bachelor of Music, and she was studying at American River College at the time of the performances. She had arrived in the United States in January 2014, and said that, prior to receiving a role in She Has a Name, she had not realized the extent to which human trafficking had become an issue in Thailand" I would snip all this—it's not relevant to the production.
• "In these performances, Ali was portrayed by Brianna Flynn, Marta by Marybeth Moore, and Mama by Sara Matsui-Colby. The voices were separately portrayed by Caitlyn Wardell, Bonnie Antignani, and Jeannette Baisch." What voices? See my comment above about the ordering of the article. It is very hard to understand as it is presently constructed. I would move the "Characters" and "Plot summary" up to appear straight after "background".
• "Performances ran from May 2 to June 22." But the reference is from before 22 June.

Characters

• You don't need the word "different" in the first sentence
• I would put "four female and one male" (using the genders as adjectives rather than as nouns)—sounds more consistent
• "young, female prostitute" don't need to say "young" as we say immediately after she claims to be 15. Also I'm not sure we need "female" as prostitutes are generally assumed to be female unless otherwise stated
• "beautiful" according to who? the script? is her beauty a plot point? Perhaps reword to "Ali is Jason's wife; they have two young daughters".
• Perhaps reword to "The other characters are a pimp, who is unnamed, and his assistant, a cruel brothel keeper called Mama."
• There isn't an inline reference at the end of this paragraph.
• "The script calls for both of the male characters—Jason and the pimp—to be played by the same actor." Perhaps "The script calls for one actor to play both male characters—Jason and the pimp".
• "these characters serve much the same purpose as a Greek chorus in Greek tragedies." this is an objective statement but I feel it may be better presented as somebody's opinion.
• "While these voices emphasize the horrors of the sex industry, they also empower Number 18, comforting her as divine messengers." says who?
• "The fact that the chorus is made up of dead child prostitutes is revealed only at the end of the play." Perhaps reword to "It is only revealed at the play's conclusion that the chorus is made up of dead child prostitutes."
• Since we say at the end of the section that the chorus is made up of dead child prostitutes, perhaps we can cut it from earlier in the paragraph and just say the first time that "Jason and Number 18 are haunted by four voices"?

Plot summary

• I will copy-edit here directly.

Themes

• "The general topic of the play is human trafficking, and specifically the trafficking of children into sexual slavery" perhaps "human trafficking—specifically the trafficking of children into sexual slavery". More direct and stronger, I think
• "and she experiences fear, anger, and shame" I think this goes without saying.
• "Waldschmidt said that the sympathetic portrayal of the perpetrators prevents the play from becoming a simplistic story of good and evil." when did he say this?
• "the stock damsel in distress character" don't think you need "character" at the end here
• The second and fourth paragraphs in this section are very long. I recommend splitting them.
• "In order to depict the tension" Don't need "in order" (both in the prose and in the Skype caption)
• "whether to continue to work on the case or whether to return to Canada" reword to "whether to continue his work or return to Canada"
• Don't think we need the wikilinks on "Calgarian" and "Vancouverite"
• "Evelyn Chew, the Vancouverite actor who took over the role for the 2012 tour, said that the play is intense because it unabashedly deals with human trafficking, and builds in intensity to its climax." She said the play is intense because it builds in intensity?
• "million women and children sold into sexual slavery each year" is this figure for a specific place or worldwide?
• would change "argued that" to "reported that" (where Mallory Clarkson says audiences can also laugh).
• Do those who say there are funny parts say what those are?
• I would change the semi-colon in the last sentence of this section to a full stop.

Critical response

• In the UK, Members of Parliament are usually called "John Smith MP" rather than "MP John Smith". Is the latter usage preferred in Canada?
• "than expected" by who? Kooman?
• When we say "The religious community" do we mean the Christian community, or other religions too? (or the community surrounding a particular sect of Christianity?)
• "because of how she was written rather than how Warkentin performed her" You don't need "written rather than how Warkentin performed her"
• I personally think "a play you will carry with you long after the lights have gone up" would be a stronger peroration than "you must see this play".

Infobox and lead

• "and were directed by Emma Eldridge" perhaps "under the direction of Emma Eldridge"
• "a young female prostitute who claims to be fifteen years old" see above—perhaps reword to "who has been a prostitute for six years and claims to be 15 years old"
• Again above comment re: "John Smith MP" vs "MP John Smith"

I hope all of this helps. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

::Thank you very much for this thorough review, John! I have implemented the majority of your recommendations. Please let me know if I have done so to your liking. I didn't add the definite article to mentions of Burnt Thicket Theatre because this entity is a troupe and not a building; I don't know if this is a dialectical difference, but the sources are consistent in omitting the definite article in referring to Burnt Thicket Theatre. I don't know of a source stating that the troupe is based in Calgary, and the "About" section on their official website doesn't declare a home base, although I assume that it's Calgary or the environs. I retained the phrase "Asian descent" rather than "Asian appearance" because the relevant sentence would otherwise imply that the actors were of Asian descent and just didn't look like they were. I cut most of the description of Sunpanich's background, but I retained the statement that she was born in Thailand because it is relevant to the play, which is set in Thailand. I kept the word "young" as a descriptor of Number 18 because removing it would make it seem like Number 18 was older and was just saying she was 15 in order to make more money. In the same sentence, I retained the word "female" because I would prefer to avoid promoting the stereotype that all prostitutes are female. Several sentences in the "Characters" section don't have explicit references for the same reason that there aren't any citations in the "Plot summary" section; this information is taken from the play itself. "MP Joy Smith" is the preferred word order in Canada; a Google News search reveals "MP Joy Smith" to appear much more often than "Joy Smith MP". I hope I have adequately addressed your concerns. If I have not, I would be glad to make additional attempts. Thank you again for engaging with the article. I think it looks much better as a result of your input. Neelix (talk) 04:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

:::Thank you for the reply David. I think the article is much stronger now.

:::*Burnt Thicket Theatre: OK, this isn't a major issue—just so long as we are consistent with the usage.

:::*Asian descent: Again not a major issue, on reflection I think most readers can understand from the context what is meant.

:::*Sunpanich: OK (though, from a pedantic point of view, the play is set in Thailand but that particular character is Cambodian)

:::*Young: OK, fair enough

:::*Female: OK, but we do have the feminine descriptor "heroine" immediately beforehand, so perhaps tautology?

:::There are still some comments above that haven't been addressed. I have gone through and stricken those that no longer apply or are elaborated on here. Well done on all the work so far, keep it up. =) —  Cliftonian (talk)  15:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

:::::Thank you for striking the issues that have been resolved; it makes it easier to see how to proceed. Considering that five issues remain, I will number them in order below:

::::::#I reworded the relevant sentence in the article so that it starts with the words "Kooman learned that some audience members..." In this way, the sentence no longer indicates any entities providing this information to Kooman, and no longer indicates that the number of these members was many. The only remaining question you ask is, "Did they all know each other?", and, unfortunately, this information is not contained in the article. Is there anything else you would like to see happen with this sentence?

::::::#Done; I must have accidentally overlooked this bullet previously.

::::::#Unfortunately, the sources don't provide this information. It has been more than two years since I saw the play myself, and I don't remember funny parts, and it probably wouldn't be useful if I did, as that would be original research on my part. Would you recommend that this portion of the article be altered?

::::::#Unfortunately, the source just refers to the religious community and doesn't specify further. I would assume that it was the Christian community, considering that several of the performance locations were churches, but I don't know for sure; the play isn't presented from any particular religious viewpoint, and would probably have supporters from a variety of religions.

::::::#I'm not sure what you mean by this point. Removing the portion you indicate would result in a sentence fragment, as far as I understand. Might you phrase your suggestion in another way?

:::::Thank you again for engaging with this article so thoroughly, John. I look forward to discussing the article with you further. Neelix (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

::::::Sorry, that last one was a mental typo on my part. I mean "because of how she was written" (and end the sentence there). Others I am not too concerned with I have stricken above. There remains the point about reception being "better than expected"; by whom? —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

:::::::No worries; that makes sense. I have removed the portion of the sentence you mention. I have rewatched the video that sources the statement that "the play's premiere and initial run were more critically acclaimed than expected." Unfortunately, the narrator simply says that the fact that the initial performances sold out was an "unexpected response"; it is not stated who wasn't doing the expecting. Given the vagueness of the statement, do you think it should be removed? Neelix (talk) 02:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

::::::::I think that would be best, particularly as "more critically acclaimed than expected" could be taken to imply that they expected to get bad reviews. Better I think just to say it got generally positive reviews (or something like that). —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::I have reworded the sentence to remove the vague reference to unattributed expectations. I just noticed your additional revisions; thank you for continuing to help with improvements. Do you have any remaining concerns regarding the article, John? Neelix (talk) 17:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

::::::::::I think that's it for me. Great job. I'm supporting now. —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

}}

I've raised this point before, but the article and its two sub-articles are probably 90% fancruft. It is not necessary or desirable to include a day-to-day itinerary, detailed excerpts from paid/PR event listings, pull quotes from every local paper about how great it is, the internal self-congratulation of the production team, ticket sale information, etc. etc. It might be interesting information for a website about the play, but is wholly unencyclopedic and promotional. I cannot support featuring this article and furthering its obviously promotional goals. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

:The content in this article is primarily sourced by articles in public newspapers targeted at a public audience, not articles in fan magazines targeted at fans with niche interests; I do not see how the content in this article could be considered fancruft. As far as I can tell, this article does not include a day-to-day itinerary, nor detailed excerpts from paid/PR event listings. Critical reviews from newspapers are included irrespective of whether or not they are positive; both the favourable and the unfavourable reviews are included. The sole ticket sale information that is included is that the initial performances sold out, which seems to me to be quite encyclopedic information. I do not see why you would consider this article promotional; I have endeavoured to treat this subject as encyclopedically as possible. Neelix (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

:: The Truth Zone You could literally find articles in "public newspapers" targeted at a "public audience" about any topic in the world. Anything. Newspapers need to fill up space, and they fill it up with bullshit like this. There's a play in town, they need to write something about it, there you go. This is not significant. Your article is not significant. The hours you have spent crafting this page do not make it significant. You are the very model of a stalker Wikipedian. The guy below who writes that this is "frankly quite moving" - hit the showers. I nominate this article for deletion. Somebody get Jimmy in here. Jimmy, check this shit out. This is who you've got running this place. Gimme a fucking break. Jimmy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.231.153.206 (talk • contribs)

Oppose. As other comments above have said, this is a fluff piece about a play that is, at best, of very minor regional/local interest. I'm not convinced this should be meeting Wikipedia's Notability criteria, let alone having an article this extensive written about it. The article is filled with minutiae and trivia that could only be of interest to the playwright's mother. The fact that the sources rely almost exclusively on tiny local newspapers (which would of course write puff pieces on whatever tiny local productions are playing at any given time) suggests just how small-scale and unimportant this topic is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.220.106 (talk • contribs)

::Please note that the two sets of comments above were written through IP address accounts which appear to be controlled by a single person who has been operating a variety of new accounts and IP addresses in order to undertake a series of attacks against myself throughout this weekend. Neelix (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Support. Well written, widely sourced and cited, balanced, and frankly quite moving. A fine article, which I am glad to support. The adverse comments in the section above seem to me extraordinary, and I can't relate to them at all. Respectable newspapers and the comments of their drama critics are the obvious and sensible sources to go to. If in due course the play is dealt with in scholarly books, well and good, but we can't have a policy that nothing about anything new can get to FA till someone's written a book about it. For now the newspapers are exactly the right source. Official campus publications are always to be viewed with caution as far as WP:RS is concerned, but the citations to The Gauntlet et al seem to me as sound as those to the commercial newspapers. The press's views, both the appreciative and the adverse, appear to be fairly and proportionately reflected in the article.

A few minor points on prose:

• Lead
• "The drama centers around" – some people get very hot under the collar at this construction, insisting that centring round is a logical impossibility. I think they're a bit silly, but I try to avoid stepping on their corns by writing "centre – or center – on", which seems to placate them.
• Characters
• "the same purpose as a Greek chorus in Greek tragedies" – you might pipe to get rid of the first "Greek" – it would help the flow of the prose
• Pre-tour revisions and readings
• "in the fall of 2011" – the Manual of Style bids us avoid dating things by seasons to avoid annoying people in the opposite hemisphere
• Themes
• "without averse effect" – adverse?
• "disassociate" – not good BrEng ("dissociate" is the word) but if it's good Canadian English please ignore me.

That's all from me. It is not easy to review an article that rather affects one's emotions while reading, but I am in no doubt that this is a fine piece of work, and it seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. – Tim riley talk 13:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

:::Thank you very much for the constructive criticism and the support, Tim! I have implemented all of the suggestions you made above. Your comments are quite encouraging, and are greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support and minor comments I've been here a few times already, happy to support. Two minor comments

::*Please check that where you have multiple refs, they are in numerical order. One or two aren't

::*"She Has A Name" in ref 50 looks odd and inconsistent. Even though it's the same in the source, I'd normalise it and lc the third word

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

::::Thank you, Jim! I don't think I ever would have thought to order the references numerically, but I agree that it looks better in that order. I have made both of the changes you recommended. Neelix (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I've commented Support at the prior FAC discussions, as well. The article page about human trafficking seems to have only improved in quality since then. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Neelix has requested a source review from me. I'll check formatting etc in one section and do some spotchecks in a second. Reference numbers are given as of the time of this source review ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=She_Has_a_Name&oldid=640723351 permanent link here]).

Formatting

• Particularly for publications that don't have geographic indicators in their names I would recommend putting location tags in there as well to make clear where they are from. This is especially pertinent as the article leans not insignificantly on sourcing to local and regional media as opposed to the national press. For example the Country Sunrise News (ref 24), Gauntlet (ref 30), 100 Huntley Street (ref 32), The Chronicle Herald (several) could be from anywhere. Ditto regarding abbreviations such as CKOM (ref 73).
• What makes [http://www.thereflector.ca/ The Reflector] (ref 27) reliable? Who publishes it? Where?
• I would recommend that more sources, such as [http://artthreat.net/2012/09/she-has-a-name-fringe/ Art Threat] (ref 67), have the publisher given. For Art Threat this is particularly pertinent as it initially appears just to be some blog but scrolling down reveals it to be under the auspices of the Canada Council for the Arts. Red Deer Living (ref 60) is another example; who publishes this?

Spotchecks

• Ref 1: So far as I can see the source doesn't specifically say Kooman's from Alberta, just that he's a "Red Deer playwright". This could just mean that he lives there. The Red Deer Living source in ref 60 ([https://digital.sourcemediagroup.ca/RedDeerLiving/summer2014/ here]) says specifically he was born and raised in Red Deer, so perhaps add this?

I'll come back and finish this later. Hope this helps for a start —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Ref 4: Doesn't seem to confirm the statement that Waldschmidt "was initially reluctant to attach himself to the play because of the immensity and ugliness of the issues therein, but he ultimately worked with Kooman to expand it into a full-length play with an extra hour of material by the end of 2010."
• Ref 20: incomplete reference to Lethbridge Herald—needs page number and/or url.
• Ref 21: should be [sic] not (sic). Also I can't see here where "Kooman spoke highly of Waldschmidt's directing, and Kooman praised Waldschmidt's work as scenic designer". I think you've confused him with Krogman.
• Ref 57: just says "the content is not recommended for anyone under the age of 15", not specifically that FreeFall Stage said this
• Ref 60: says "they recently scouted locations in Cambodia", not specifically that this was in 2014. Perhaps reword to "By mid-2014 they had scouted locations in Cambodia" or something like this

:::I'm restricted in the spotchecks I can do on some of the sources as subscriptions are required for some of them. I will try to get by as best I can. More later. —  Cliftonian (talk)  15:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• I know I brought this up above as well, but it still bothers me—we say "The religious community's reviews of the initial run were also positive", but the reference is to a single Christian talk show. Both the wording and the sourcing here bother me. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that this Christian talk show reviewed it positively, rather than the whole "religious community"? What is the "religious community" anyway?

Cheers, hope this helps. If anybody else wants to do spotchecks as well that would be great as I didn't check absolutely everything. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Comments I'm not convinced that local newspapers are reliable sources by default. What makes the following reliable sources?:

• Red Deer Advocate
• Red Deer Express
• Plank Magazine
• The Strathmore Standard
• The Charlebois Post
• Country Sunrise News
• Strathmore Times
• Mennonite Brethren Herald
• Fast Forward Weekly
• Victoria News.—indopug (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

::Changed to oppose in light of the nominator's wikibreak. I believe this article should not pass until the local-newspaper sources have been examined and deemed to be reliable.—indopug (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I am very sorry, everyone. Despite the fact that this FAC has four supports and looks like it is on the cusp of getting the article successfully promoted, I am going on a wikibreak. I have been the target of a very high level of trolling on Wikipedia these past few days, and I think it would be unhealthy for me to continue working in such an environment. I care about this article and would very much like to see it featured, but if it is not ready to be featured as it is now, or if others cannot get it to that point, I will simply have to renominate it for another FAC when I return, which I expect will be in February. Thank you all for your interest in this article. I hope you have an enjoyable, productive, and vandalism-free month. Neelix (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

{{FACClosed|archived}} Graham Beards (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.