Template:Did you know nominations/The Pittsburgh Cycle
- 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. Track your hook after promotion. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
The Pittsburgh Cycle
edit- ... that August Wilson completed his 10-play Pittsburgh Cycle only months before his death?
- Source: ""Radio Golf," the last of the 10 plays that constitute Mr. Wilson's majestic theatrical cycle, opened at the Yale Repertory Theater last spring and has subsequently been produced in Los Angeles. It was the concluding chapter in a spellbinding story that began more than two decades ago, when Mr. Wilson's play "Ma Rainey's Black Bottom" had its debut at the same theater, in 1984, and announced the arrival of a major talent, fully matured."
- ALT1: ... that the August Wilson's 10-play Pittsburgh Cycle has been compared to the work of William Shakespeare? Source: "Sam Pollard directed the film and in this interview, he said he thinks even though there are many famous American playwrights — Arthur Miller, Eugene O'Neill, Edward Albee, Tennessee Williams — Wilson is the American Shakespeare. “His body of work really covers the whole 20th century of American history,” he said. “There is no other American playwright who did that body of work over a period of time.”"
- ALT2: ... that August Wilson called a 349-year-old woman "the most significant persona" of his 10-play Pittsburgh Cycle? Source: "Aunt Ester has emerged for me as the most significant persona of the cycle. The characters, after all, are her children. The wisdom and tradition she embodies are valuable tools for the reconstruction of their personality and for dealing with a society in which the contradictions, over the decades, have grown more fierce, and for exposing all the places it is lacking in virtue."
- ALT3: ... that nine of the ten plays of The Pittsburgh Cycle take place in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania? Source: "August Wilson’s seminal cycle of 10 plays covers African-American history in the 20th century, with all but one set in Pittsburgh’s Hill District, where Wilson grew up."
- Reviewed:
- Comment: I accidentally put this as created for today April 1, but it was created/moved to mainspace on 3/29. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dizzycheekchewer (talk • contribs) 18:54, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
- ALT1: ... that the August Wilson's 10-play Pittsburgh Cycle has been compared to the work of William Shakespeare? Source: "Sam Pollard directed the film and in this interview, he said he thinks even though there are many famous American playwrights — Arthur Miller, Eugene O'Neill, Edward Albee, Tennessee Williams — Wilson is the American Shakespeare. “His body of work really covers the whole 20th century of American history,” he said. “There is no other American playwright who did that body of work over a period of time.”"
Created by Dizzycheekchewer (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.
Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2026 (UTC).
- @Dizzycheekchewer: Still need to check Earwig and the hooks, but I'm noticing significant unsourced content, please fix this.--Launchballer 17:54, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
- Provisionally approving ALT0 only, pending addressal of the above and an Earwig check. On why none of the others will fly, "Wilson is the American Shakespeare" is not the same as "Pittsburgh Cycle has been compared to the work of William Shakespeare", ALT2 presents "349-year-old woman" as fact when the character is fictional, and ALT3 is a flagrant DYKINT fail (his plays are always going to be set somewhere).--Launchballer 21:00, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
- Earwig picks up on properly attributed quotes, though some of them are long. Expect to be asked to trim them per WP:SUMMARY if this goes to GA. Finally, this is long and new enough. Please address the above.--Launchballer 02:05, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
- Hi Launchballer, thanks for the review! I am happy to fix whichever issues. I don't quite see the areas of significant unsourced content. Every paragraph has at least one source (I fixed the only exception, which was a short prefatory paragraph that arguably didn't need one) and most sentences overall are properly cited. Sentences that aren't follow pretty naturally and/or use the same source as the surrounding sentences. I tried to decrease the number of sentences without a direct inline citation, but if you could point me toward the areas that concern you, I could definitely fix them. I also appreciate the tip about the quotes re GA eligibility.
- Earwig picks up on properly attributed quotes, though some of them are long. Expect to be asked to trim them per WP:SUMMARY if this goes to GA. Finally, this is long and new enough. Please address the above.--Launchballer 02:05, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
- I certainly don't mind ALT0, but I do find the out-of-hand rejections of ALT1 and ALT3 a bit puzzling. The quote I used to support DYK1 clearly connects the Shakespeare comp to his Cycle (i.e. "His body of work really covers the whole 20th century" refers to the Cycle—his only produced play besides the Cycle is a one-man-show memoir about his work). Besides that, the claim on the page itself is cited with four distinct sources (including prominent critics) saying that he and his Cycle are Shakespearean (in different ways, from the language to the meaty acting roles to the historical perspective). On Alt3, yes, of course, every play is set somewhere, but there are very few major multi-play cycles (let alone 10-play cycles) and it is at least vaguely interesting for someone to set 10 distinct works in one single place (it is, for example, the very second line of the page for William Faulkner). What makes it more than vaguely interesting is that all but one are in one place. Why is the one not? Where is it instead? I certainly don't think it flagrantly fails as an interesting factoid, though if you are opposed to all but Alt0 I again don't mind going with that one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dizzycheekchewer (talk • contribs) 06:47, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
- I can only speak for ALT3, but I don't think it is a surprising fact that a play circle named after Pittsburgh would be mostly set in Pittsburgh. If it was the opposite, that would be the time when it would be unusual or surprising. You can read WP:DYKINT for more information, but basically, DYK is looking for hooks involving facts that are likely to interest general readers who may not necessarily be familiar with a topic. This is why we usually go for more "unusual" or "unexpected" angles. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:15, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
- Pinging Launchballer, who will not have seen the previous ping since that comment didn't include a sig, for a response in the hopes of getting this nomination moving again. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
New reviewer needed, since Launchballer has not returned to continue the review in over a week since being pinged, and the nomination will hit the two-month mark a week from now. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:10, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
- Pinging Launchballer, who will not have seen the previous ping since that comment didn't include a sig, for a response in the hopes of getting this nomination moving again. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
- I can only speak for ALT3, but I don't think it is a surprising fact that a play circle named after Pittsburgh would be mostly set in Pittsburgh. If it was the opposite, that would be the time when it would be unusual or surprising. You can read WP:DYKINT for more information, but basically, DYK is looking for hooks involving facts that are likely to interest general readers who may not necessarily be familiar with a topic. This is why we usually go for more "unusual" or "unexpected" angles. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:15, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
- I certainly don't mind ALT0, but I do find the out-of-hand rejections of ALT1 and ALT3 a bit puzzling. The quote I used to support DYK1 clearly connects the Shakespeare comp to his Cycle (i.e. "His body of work really covers the whole 20th century" refers to the Cycle—his only produced play besides the Cycle is a one-man-show memoir about his work). Besides that, the claim on the page itself is cited with four distinct sources (including prominent critics) saying that he and his Cycle are Shakespearean (in different ways, from the language to the meaty acting roles to the historical perspective). On Alt3, yes, of course, every play is set somewhere, but there are very few major multi-play cycles (let alone 10-play cycles) and it is at least vaguely interesting for someone to set 10 distinct works in one single place (it is, for example, the very second line of the page for William Faulkner). What makes it more than vaguely interesting is that all but one are in one place. Why is the one not? Where is it instead? I certainly don't think it flagrantly fails as an interesting factoid, though if you are opposed to all but Alt0 I again don't mind going with that one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dizzycheekchewer (talk • contribs) 06:47, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
- @Dizzycheekchewer: I was about to take a look at this, but the QPQ tool lists this as your seventh nomination. I'm not sure if the list is in alphabetical order or chronological order, so to be on the safe side, please say how many nominations you had prior to this (the message above said you had less than five, this is just for transparency). The Earwig detection issue has not been addressed, and the trimming has yet to happen. I was going to approve ALT0, but the sentence discussing it lacks a footnote, so that needs to be resolved per WP:DYKHFC. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:21, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
The Pittsburgh Cycle is Dizzycheekchewer's fourth nomination per ; QPQtool lists nominations in alphabetical order. Seeing as you've successfully ragebaited me back here, I checked the article and all the 'unsourced' content is followed by cited blockquotes; while poor writing, it's obvious that that's where they're from and this isn't part of the DYK criteria, so I'm ticking this off.--Launchballer 12:37, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
- I gotta be honest, I don't get what is going on here.@Narutolovehinata5: I can certainly make the ALT0 more explicitly stated in the article, but I don't know what you mean when you say that the earwig hasn't been fixed or that trimming hasn't been done (I know literally what the words mean of course). There was only a reference in what Launchballer said to the fact that there were more quotes than LB would prefer and it was worth considering cuts (due to WP:SUMMARY, which says nothing I see about block quotes) if seeking GA status. I'm not seeking that now. And the only major earwig ping is a single block quote that is properly cited in the article—there's no copyvio issue. I'm in general happy to concede to people's preferences in these things as I want the article to be better, but I don't know whose preferences to follow in the jumble.
- @Launchballer: I didn't "ragebait" you. Weeks ago, I responded to your prelim assessment to ask for what specific areas I should look at. I still don't know what you meant, though I suppose it must be the block quotes, which were properly cited the entire time. Now you've concluded that block quotes = bad writing, which I guess I don't have a response for. Also 'unsourced' is your word, so I'm not sure why its scare-quoted. This is all aside from your dismissal of ALT1 and ALT3, about which you made no effort to respond.
- I see you both do a lot of excellent, thankless work on DYK. I also get that this is a niche topic with a lot of detail that may not feel worth delving into. But this was an unpleasant, seemingly useless enterprise. I don't doubt that the article could be improved and hope it will be (by myself as well as others), but—while there are various aspersions cast at it—the only concrete critiques are a) block quotes bad b) not interesting to me(as well as NLH5's welcome note of the oversight to the ALT0 citation within the article). It feels in the exact same place it was when nominated ~2 months ago, but now it has a tick.Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2026 (UTC)