 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
This article needs to be rewritten in a less promotional tone. It's also currently lacking sources. Shimeru 08:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is a straightforward account of what the theater company is and does, quite similar to the articles for
La MaMa Experimental Theatre Club,
The Public Theater,
Marin Theatre Company, and
Steppenwolf Theatre Company, and it clearly indicates the official website as its source. I see no other way to describe a
regional theatre company other than to explain its purpose and history and list notable participants and/or productions, which hardly can be considered "promotional."
SFTVLGUY2 22:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Shimeru appears to have an odd idea of what constitutes POV. To say "Signature serves as a home for both emerging talents and established composers and librettists who are developing new works for the musical theatre" is not POV, it's a fact, plain and simple, the very reason the company exists. The New Play Festival does not "feature" new works, it develops them in ongoing workshops prior to their staging. "Signature has enjoyed a long and successful relationship with Stephen Sondheim, producing thirteen of his musicals thus far" is an accurate statement, considering the relationship dates back to 1991 and most of the productions of his works have won awards for the company, so "long and successful" is fact, not POV, and removing "thus far" suggests the relationship is over.
- Describing the productions listed as "notable" is accurate in that all of them were developed at Signature and went on to great success on Broadway and elsewhere.
- I also do not understand the persistence in tagging this article as "unsourced" when Signature's official website is listed as an external link. Is one expected to cite every fact and figure throughout the article with links to the same exact source? I don't believe so.
- Finally, may I respectfully suggest that Shimeru act like an administrator and respond to discussions instead of ignoring them and making edits that damage the article by removing crucial information, i.e., the reason this organization exists in the first place? Thank you.
SFTVLGUY2 14:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- You may consider these things fact. Unfortunately, there are currently no references verifying them to be the case. We cannot rely on Signature's homepage for this; it is a primary source and cannot be used to verify exceptional claims. In the absence of such sources, phrasing such as "serves as a home" and "successful" are promotional/POV in tone.
- "Thus far" is a redundant phrase. It adds no meaning to the sentence. "Since 1991" already covers that. I don't see how removal implies the relationship is over; I would take it in just the opposite way.
- "Notable" is POV, in the absence of sources. Who says so? Wikipedia cannot say so.
- Finally, the article is unsourced. There is not one citation and not one listed reference. (An external link is not the same thing.) One is of course not expected to cite every fact and figure with links to the same source -- one should make use of different sources, preferably ones independent of the article's subject.
Shimeru 19:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. When I go to the link you provided for primary source, I find the following statement: "Three classes of sources exist, each of which can be used within Wikipedia," and the first one listed is "primary sources."
- In this instance "notable" is not POV, and ironically the source you seem to think is absent is Wikipedia itself. By clicking on the blue link for each of the productions listed, the reader will be directed to the articles about them and within them discover what makes them notable.
- My background in theatre history and profession as a theatre writer are either clouding or enhancing my judgment here. I suspect most theatre-oriented individuals would understand what constitutes "notable" and why the descrption is used aptly here.
SFTVLGUY2 19:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but if you'll read further, you'll see that primary sources are not onsidered sufficient for establishing extraordinary claims. This is because primary sources are not reliably neutral. The theater has an interest in promoting itself, and any material it presents, while it might be 100% true, is also going to show the theater in the best possible light.
- On the other matter, I apologize for the confusion. I'm not disputing that the shows are notable. You're correct; those articles establish that. I'm wondering who said that the theater's presentations of those shows were notable, because that's what the article is claiming, as it's presently phrased. Shimeru 03:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The material and references on the Sondheim Award, added on March 22, 2017 by me, was taken from the article on Stephen Sondheim. Flami72 ( talk) 11:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:
- Diner Signature Theatre.jpg
- Jelly's Last Jam Signature Theatre.jpg
- Signature Theatre Sunday in the Park with George.jpg
- Signature Titanic.jpg
- WSS-0636.jpg
You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)