Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre

Theatre articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA	2	13	11	36		1	63
FL		1	4	35		1	41
FM					248		248
GA	3	10	17	128		10	168
B	18	72	163	565		60	878
C	36	122	441	2,620		192	3,411
Start	20	113	795	9,605		489	11,022
Stub	3	25	250	6,597		285	7,160
List	1	7	234	321		23	586
Category					10,647		10,647
Disambig					63		63
File					601		601
Portal					5		5
Project					31		31
Redirect	1	1	19	151	1,570		1,742
Template					603		603
NA					3		3
Other				1	207		208
Assessed	84	364	1,934	20,059	13,978	1,061	37,480
Unassessed			1	48		405	454
Total	84	364	1,935	20,107	13,978	1,466	37,934
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 114,684			Ω = 5.05

• subpages of this page

Good article reassessment for Characters of Shakespear's Plays

Characters of Shakespear's Plays has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Request for Review: Melis Aker Draft

Hello,

I have recently submitted a draft article on Melis Aker, a Turkish playwright, screenwriter, and musician. The draft includes reliable sources such as The New York Times, Time Out, and BroadwayWorld, and reflects substantial Off-Broadway and international work.

I would greatly appreciate any feedback or a possible early review from members of this project.

Thank you for your time and consideration! Melis Aker (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@Melis Aker I would suggest starting by fixing all of those bare urls. You should be putting refs into templates with publication details (author, publisher, date of publication, title, isbn number, etc.). See Template:Cite news, Template:Cite journal, Template:Cite web, and Template:Cite book. Also, IMDb is forbidden from being used as a cited reference on wikipedia per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources (see WP:IMDb). The Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard has deemed it unreliable. You should remove those IMDb citations immediately.4meter4 (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, @4meter4, for your thoughtful feedback on my draft. I’ve now gone through and updated the article accordingly:

• All bare URLs have been replaced with properly formatted citation templates (using {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help) and {{cite news}}: Empty citation (help))
• IMDb has been removed from inline citations (retained only in the External Links section, as per guidance)
• Additional publication metadata (titles, publication names, access dates, etc.) has been added where available

I appreciate the clarity of your suggestions and your time in helping improve the draft. If you have any further suggestions or see anything else I’ve missed, I’d be very grateful for another look. Thanks again!

Melis Aker (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@Melis Aker You are welcome. A few more suggestions. I would suggest reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography for understanding wikipedia's style for approaching biographies. I strongly suggest that you have at least three sentences in a paragraph before adding a break. One of things you should try to do is provide chronological details on when things occurred, and present the content in a chronological order. I've done this a bit by adding dates on the fellowships to give you an example. It would be good to incorporate the plays into this chronological timeline. Additionally, avoid making this article read like a WP:RESUME (which it currently does; see also WP:NOTRESUME) or like a puff piece. A good way to do this is to provide balanced critical reviews (ie both positive and negative) which engage with her plays. We want the reader to come away learning something about Aker's plays and who she is as a writer/artist, and not just what she did when and where. Providing selected quotes is helpful, but also pulling a brief plot synopsis or other personal tidbit about a play can help make the content not read so much like a resume but more like a biography on a playwright. Lastly, please read our policies at WP:BLP. We are very strict about not including personal information on living people that is not strongly sourced. We need a high quality reference for example stating Aker was born in San Francisco (particularly since many of her artist bios say she is from Turkey). I've put citation needed tagged on some of the personal content that needs better referencing. See also our policy at WP:Verifiability. Please feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you ever have a question or need help. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the detailed feedback, @4meter4 — I’ve now revised the draft accordingly. Here's what I've done:

• Reorganized the structure to follow a clearer biographical and chronological flow
• Combined shorter entries into fuller paragraphs per the Manual of Style
• Added summaries for the plays *Fish* and *Field, Awakening* to give more artistic context
• Included critical reception with citations, including *New York Times* reviews for *Hound Dog* and *Playing On Air*
• Removed unsourced personal information (including birthplace) and added verifiable citations for my academic background (Tufts, Columbia, LMDA)
• Reformatted all citations into full cite templates

I'm very grateful for your guidance—it helped improve both the tone and clarity of the piece a bit more. If you have any additional suggestions, I’d be happy to address them. Thanks again!

Melis Aker (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Soliloquy

Soliloquy has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

The World Destubathon

Hello. Project members are invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It will be held from Monday June 16 - Sunday July 13. There is $3338 going into it, with $500 the top prize. There is a $100 prize in memory of Marnette D for the editor who destubs and improves the most articles for film, TV, theatre and literature. If you are interested in winning some vouchers to help you buy books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles for your project improved during the month, sign up if interested.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:56, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Receiving house

The article Receiving house has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced and unimproved for over 15 years. Basically a WP:DICDEF. Possibly can be redirected to Wiktionary.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 07:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

@Bearian I think a better solution would be to cover this at Glossary of theater terms and merge there per WP:ATD. You could take this to WP:MERGEPROP or WP:AFD with that suggestion as a viable deletion alternative. There are several book sources in google books that define the term. Before nominating WP:DICDEF type articles for deletion it is always a good idea to check for glossary pages because they often make good merge targets in such cases per WP:ATD. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Ian McKellen

Ian McKellen has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:18, 2 June 2025 (UTC)