Jump to content

Talk:Details Cannot Body Wants

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feedback from New Page Review process

[edit]

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thanks for making an article on Wikipedia. Have you considered nominating it for Wikipedia's Do You Know Otherwise, have a great day!

Tavantius (talk) 14:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 19:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that Singapore's first R-rated play was performed despite the police finding it "offensive"?
Created by Imbluey2 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Imbluey2. Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 06:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Imbluey2: Article is new enough. Hook is interesting. I made a few minor copyedits to the article. The article doesn't actually say anything about how the police were involved, so that should be added. The reader will be looking for the police connection. Also, the copyvio detector is at violation possible 49.5% with one of the sources, so some of the stuff highlighted in red there will need to be revised first. Just one more minor thing, I don't think Singapore needs to be bolded in the hook. I think it looks better as "that Singapore's first R-rated play was performed despite the police finding it "offensive"?" Nice work on the article! ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator hasn't edited in a few days and didn't respond to the above. Asking if fellow Singaporean DYK regulars Kingoflettuce or ZKang123 can help out. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Imbluey2: Please respond to the above. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't receive the ping for some odd reason. Anyways, should I just add a footnote in the article explaining that the Entertainment licensing unit is now part of the police? I'll change the stuff that (potentially) violates copyright.
That will work but I think it would be better if the police part was added to the actual body in prose instead of just footnoted. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 03:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added it. As for the potential copyright violations, I don't know if I can decrease it much since the texts that are in "violation" are either common phrases or quotes from different sources. But I'll try Imbluey2. Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 12:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiOriginal-9:?
Looks like the copyvio tool still doesn't like some of that stuff. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 03:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiOriginal-9: got it to 38.7%, which isn't considered a violation. Do you want me to decrease it further? Also, do you think the hook should have an image of the cast? It's in the article as external media but I believe it qualifies under WP: NFC
That still seems a tad high unfortunately. Could you reword stuff a little more and get it to under 20%? Also, only fully-free images are allowed on the main page. Non-free images are not allowed there. Thanks. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiOriginal-9: done. Imbluey2. Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 03:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Imbluey2: That looks good now. Approving the hook. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Imbluey2 and WikiOriginal-9: the source just says that PELU found parts of the play offensive and blacked those out, not that they found the entire play offensive. Could the hook be updated to match? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 4th excerpt of the source says "it was only Chin's play [Details Cannot Body Wants] that was deemed "offensive" by the Public Entertainment Licensing Unit"" so I'm not sure the hook is wrong. Though the last excerpt also says "certain passages which were marked out by Pelu as "offensive", so if you want to revise it feel free. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: I don't mind to be honest, feel free to change it. Imbluey2. Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 02:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the nomination is already over two months old; as such, the nomination will be marked for closure if the issues are not addressed within a reasonable timeframe. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT1: ... that Singapore's first R-rated play was performed despite the police finding parts of it "offensive"?

@Narutolovehinata5: ALT1 added. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

[edit]

Details Cannot Body Wants

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm considering nominating it for GA and this will be my first nomination outside of MRT articles. I think the biggest issue is copy-editing and formatting. Comments on other aspects are appreciated.

Thanks, Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 15:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Icepinner, I made these edits to your article. I removed a few links per WP:OL and moved some refs in the lead per WP:LEADCITE. One issue I found with your article was the similar wording throughout it to this ref, which is the main ref used in this article. Many phrases or sentences are closely paraphrased from the ref.
  • The article: the cultivation of a coy voice, the ref: the cultivation of the coy voice
  • The article: she had the play's four concepts as well as two images (one of a woman crawling on the floor with a trail of pots and pans and the other of a woman undergoing a breast examination) already in mind, the ref: The four concepts were in her head when she sat down to write the play, and she also had two images in mind — one of a woman crawling on the floor with a motley assortment of pots and pans trailing behind her, and the other of the breast examination.
  • The article: Although PELU was against the "adult language" and "taboo gestures" (such as grabbing/scratching the crotch) used in the play, the ref: It also features some of what Pelu terms as "adult language" and taboo gestures such as the grabbing and scratching of crotches.
These don't show up on Earwig as NewspaperSG articles are composed of images, but the chance of copyvio is still high. More should also be added to the reception section to better show the mixed opinions from critics. Other than that, the rest of the article is detailed. actuall7 (talk | contrib) 07:25, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Actuall7 Thanks! I tried to find more for the reception of the play but I couldn't really find anything (it's a pretty unknown play with a limited run so maybe that's why). Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 09:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to ping you earlier so I didn't know if you've read it or not (that's my bad). Anyways, I found more sources, thanks to Samwalton for recommending me to use Proquest! Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 13:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Icepinner, the expanded reception section certain looks better now. I would also recommend using NewspaperArchive.com, JSTOR, or World Scientific to look for sources in the future, although when I checked them I didn't find much regarding this article. However, the close paraphrasing I mentioned above is still present. Most of the paraphrasing in the article is fine for the most part, but I think the three listed above are the most problematic. If possible, please reword them. actuall7 (talk | contrib) 10:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Actuall7 I'm back!. Anyways, I'm done, though I don't know if the new paraphrasing makes the flow of the article "awkward" . Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 12:16, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back @Icepinner, I hope you had a nice trip. Upon a second look at your article, I personally couldn't find any other outstanding issues, so I think it's good to be submitted for GAN, especially so you can get a proper reviewer. actuall7 (talk | contrib) 12:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Actuall7! :) Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 13:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]
Passed. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Details Cannot Body Wants/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Icepinner (talk · contribs) 05:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk · contribs) 02:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Hey @Icepinner:, Well done on this article! It is very interesting and well-written. This is the 100th article I have reviewed and the first play I have reviewed so I hope I won't let you down :) Earwig shows no copyright violations and I cannot see any major issues, so here are my comments and suggestions for clarity:

Synopsis:

  1. "exploring an Asian woman's societal" - Could you please clarify if the narrator is talking about herself or Asian women in general?
  • Changed it to plural form since she intended it for Asian women in general
  1. "(i) details - details of women's struggles in life, (ii) cannot - restrictions placed on women when creating their identity/destiny, (iii) body - male and female's perceptions of women's form, (iv) wants - women's wants" - Are the titles explicitly named in the play?
  • Not sure. It's based on this, which cites the same source. I can go to the library and check if you want.

Creation:

  1. Could you please link Feminist theatre during "feminist play"?
  • Done
  1. "The Naturalization of Camellia Song & Details Cannot Body Wants" - Could you please clarify what this was? Was it an anthology?
  • Yes. Done
  1. Could you please link Chin and briefly explain who she is/was (e.g. she was a writer and teacher) and if there was anything that inspired her to write the play? Had she written plays before?
  • Didn't initially respond to your above comment but I believe she has wrote plays before. I will add it
  1. Could
  • Um, what do you want me to do for this point?

Stage adaptation:

  1. Could you potentially replace "in a while"?
  • Replaced it with "in a long time"
  1. "which featured his play Second Chance and Details Cannot Body Wants" - Could you please clarify that he did not write the latter play?
  • Swapped it around
  1. "offensive gestures (such as grabbing the crotch)" - I think the bit in the bit in brackets needs rewording (e.g. "such as a scene where a character grabs their crotch")
  • Done
  1. "though all publicity materials of Renewable Women must have a disclaimer discouraging patrons below 18 from attending" - This should be in past tense
  • Done
  1. "the play is "essentially an ideological piece"" - This should be reworded (e.g. "as she believed that the play was an ideological piece")
  • Done
  1. What does it mean that the play was an ideological piece?
  • I'm honestly not even sure. Should I remove it?
  1. "Chin accepted the decision as the play is "essentially an ideological piece" but expressed confusion over PELU marking a scene involving a simulation of a breast examination as "offensive"." - As it has 2 quotes, it needs a ref at the end of the sentence
  • Done
  1. Could you please clarify which decision the public relations and activities manager of NUSS was surprised by?
  • Done
  1. "only the latter was deemed "offensive"" - By who/what?
  • Done

Premiere:

  1. Could you please link matineé?
  1. "three students from the National Institute of Education were instructed to screen play-goers who looked "suspiciously young" along with handling the tickets" - As this has quotes, it needs a ref
  • Done
  1. Could you please clarify what "screen play-goers" means?
  • Changed it to "to check patrons"
  1. "as well as the audience seemingly mostly between 20 and 30 years old" - This sentence needs rewording (e.g. "the newspaper believed that audience was mostly between 20 and 30 years old")
  • Done

Reception:

  1. "In response to Pandian's criticism, David Britton of the National University of Singapore's (NUS) English Language and Literature Department gave an alternative perspective of the play, calling it "a thoughtful and witty consideration of an Asian woman emerging in a world of mixed sexual and cultural influences"." - This needs a ref
  • Done
  1. Is there any more information that could be added here? Perhaps about how audience found the play?
  • I don't know. There's no info based on my sources but I have applied for Newspaper.com. I did add the Straits Times reporting on it though so

Later developments:

  1. Is there any information on when the reading of the play in Canada happened?
  • From the available resource, no. I have applied for Newspaper.com but we'll have to wait for a few days.
  1. Is there any information on how the 1998 play was received? Or if Chin played the lead character again?
  • See the above comment
  1. In the quoted material, Chin says that she was part of "Singaporean drama history" - are there any other sources that say that could be added in the reception etc? Or any reasons why she thinks that?
  2. Chin also says that she was afraid of losing credibility with her students - Could you perhaps put a sentence in the the "Creation" section about her being a teacher for clarity?
  • Did that

Once these have been addressed I will do a source spotcheck and hopefully pass the article :) Well done for your work so far! Please do not hesitate to ping me if you have any questions or need assistance at all :) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Details_Cannot_Body_Wants&oldid=1297641236"