Talk:The Pajama Game

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Musical Theatre Portal The Pajama Game is part of WikiProject Musical Theatre, organized to improve and complete musical theatre articles and coverage on Wikipedia. You can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start Class
WikiProject Musical Theatre tasks: Help out with one of the WikiProject Musical Theatre tasks below. You may add your name to the Participants list to the right. edit this Open Tasks template Collaborate and work on the Collaboration of the Month Articles needing a content fork Mainly, these are articles on films and either their source or subsequent musicals. There are a couple where the musical needs to be "forked" from the source material. Feel free to add or remove as necessary. Important: If you split an article, please make sure that you move all the relevant links from the first article to the new one. To find which links to move, click on "What links here" at the old article and look through the list to see which links should be pointed to the film related link (for example, articles on actors in the film). Then, click on those links and update them to point to the film article. Thanks! Don't Play Us Cheap Roberta How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying I Married an Angel Lady in the Dark The Band Wagon - musical adaptation will to be forked after it opens in April.

Contents 1 1988 2 Separate article 3 Film 4 How to add NPOV information

[edit] 1988

Am wondering if the 1988 revival is an off Broadway revival, and maybe should have it's own category, i don't know. Bib 00:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Quote "And a City Opera “reproduction,” in 1989, stars Judy Kaye and Richard Muenz", so removing it from under the Broadway headline. Bib 00:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Separate article

On the whole I think having separate articles for revivals of musicals would be very silly - MUCH better to keep them together, surely?? I mean where would it all end - any article on a major musical to be restricted to information about the first production (sometimes far from the most populsr or important!!). Soundofmusicals 07:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm removing the tag. Bib 15:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Film

Incidentally - what are those film tags doing here - the original article is about a stage musical - (albeit a film was made of it). Or is there something I am missing here??? Soundofmusicals 08:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The film article has now been split off to its own article, so the film tag is there now. -- Ssilvers 19:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to add NPOV information

My edit on the Broadway 2006 revival was removed as "unnecessaery detail (length of show) duplicative items; producers are generaly not noted; the rest reads like a press agent release; "huge number..reviews":unref)", so I have a couple of questions. (OK, so it's not necessary to write how long the show was including the intermission, I get it. And ok, no mentioning of the Commercial producers. And no use of the word huge, OK.) So here are the questions: Can it be "rave reviews" as in Evita (musical) then, or "The production was well received by both critics and audience" as in Annie Get Your Gun (musical). As for mentioning the show was sold out within a week, selling out is mentioned in The Little Mermaid (musical), Spamalot, Assassins (musical), and loads (or several) wikipedia musical articles mention reviews. And IMO it is a necessary 'detail' to mention there was week long extension. It would be great if anyone could help me with how to write this in. Bib (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope I didn't come across as harsh, but I tried to squeeze a lot into that little edit box. Here's what I would do re those reviews: a very general statement, like "reviews were positive", then back it up with statements (short exact quotes) from some of the reviews, for example, from here:[1]; here [2], most importantly, here: [3]. There are many more you can look up: USA Today, The New Yorker, Curtain Up, the Washington Post, etc. If you find a negative review or a partially negative (as the talkinbroadway is), you might consider including that also, balance is nice to have. I assume you know about how to do the citing.

Should you want to add them back, I will delete neither the extension nor the "selling out", but... The item about selling out is a little problematic, and this is why I think that: it was produced by the Roundabout Theatre Company, which has a pretty healthy subscriber base, so I assume was already pretty well-sold. That differs dramatically from the straight commercial situation of, say, Spamalot. However, go ahead and say it, just give the usual sourcing.

I can not vouch for what others may say or do, just speaking for me alone.JeanColumbia (talk) 17:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the reply, and good suggestions. If anybody wish to edit or critisize this text attempt, please do:

Reviews were positive, USA Today's Elysa Gardner gave it 3 and a half stars out of 4.[4] The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's Christopher Rawson gave a positive review about the show, directing, the acting, singiang. [5] The New York Times' Ben Brantley was pleased with the chemistry between Connick and O'Hara, ("the hottest couple in the New York theater") and with the music, singing dancing and directing. [6] A negative review, was Talkin' Broadway's Matthew Murray who was particularly displeased with the acting and singing of Harry Connick, Jr., and Kathleen Marshall's directing. He wrote about Connick that "you start praying that someone who knows what he's doing will take over". About Marshall he wrote "This time around, she's directed two shows, neither of them good", and that "all the characters cohabitate about as well as oil and water", however he was pleased with the performance of Richard Poe, Roz Ryan and Michael McCormick. [7]

I suspect I could add more reviews, and make the mention of each review shorter, and maybe search for more negative reviews instead of giving extra space to the negative one from Talkin' Broadway. Anyhow, when it comes to selling out, maybe it could be mentioned how the Roundabout has a lot of subscribers:

The Roundabout Theatre, which has a big subscription list, opened the limited run in the 740-seat American Airlines Theatre on February 23,[8] and sold out within the week.

Or maybe the article is better left the way it is, for now. I might work more on this another time. Bib (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)