Talk:Luke Leonard

Article update to reflect professional name and cleanup

Hello—I've updated the article to reflect the subject’s current professional name, Luke Landric, per the official website and published sources. The lead and infobox were revised; occupations updated (added playwright; removed actor/filmmaker to reflect current practice); Works sections standardized (Opera/Theatre/Film) with consistent formatting; recent career activity and a brief Personal life section were added with citations; and citation templates were cleaned for consistency. Outdated/non-neutral wording was trimmed.

Sources supporting the name and updates include:

• Official site: lukelandric.com
• Coverage and reviews: The New York Times; Houstonia; Texas Monthly; Sports Illustrated; Limelight
• Institutional pages: The American Opera Project; New York Theatre Workshop; Seoul Institute of the Arts
• Additional references as cited in the article

These edits aim to improve accuracy, sourcing, and style per WP:BLP, WP:RS, and MOS. Feedback and further improvements welcome. – Amateurbot (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Request Move

I propose renaming this article from Luke Leonard to Luke Landric.

• The subject’s professional name, as reflected in his official website and recent reliable sources, is **Luke Landric**.
• “Leonard” is his birth name, but he is now publicly known and working under “Landric.”
• Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:BLP, the article title should reflect the name used in reliable secondary sources.

Amateurbot (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

The earlier page-move suggestion is withdrawn. No move is being requested. — Avanturgy (talk) 06:22, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Requested move and article update

A draft revision of this article has been prepared in the sandbox here: User:Amateurbot/sandbox.

The draft proposes moving the article title from "Luke Leonard" to "Luke Landric," which is the professional name now used in reliable sources, including:

• Official website
• Seoul Institute of the Arts faculty page
• The Brooklyn Rail

The sandbox draft also includes an updated lead that removes outdated wording and provides attributed critical reception (from The New York Times, Limelight, and OperaChaser), along with standardized Works sections and additional cited material.

Input and consensus are invited before implementing any changes. Amateurbot (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Cleanup and sourcing updates

Hello everyone,

I've recently given this article a bit of a tidy-up to improve sourcing and tone. In particular:

• Replaced or tagged citations that didn’t quite support the claims they were attached to (for instance, the New York Times reference has been reworded to reflect what’s actually stated in the piece).
• Added and tags where independent verification is still missing.
• Trimmed or rephrased sections that read a bit like self-promotion.
• Kept reliably published material from outlets such as *The New York Times*, *Texas Monthly*, and *The Austin Chronicle*.

There’s still some work to do, especially in the “Life and career” and “Work” sections, which could use stronger secondary sources.

Cheers! MontessoriMomma (talk) 08:51, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Lead rewrite and professional name clarification

I’ve rewritten the lead for clarity and neutrality, reflecting the subject’s verified professional name “Luke Landric,” supported by the official website and a recent byline in The Brooklyn Rail.

All quotations (The New York Times, Limelight, and OperaChaser) are accurately attributed to reviews of Leonard’s productions, in compliance with WP:V and WP:BLP. I’ve restored the properly cited text because the *New York Times* review by Steve Smith explicitly praises Leonard’s *direction* (“outstanding use of limited space”) and the production’s “creditable gambles.” This is not a synthesis — the statements refer directly to Leonard’s artistic work, which is the subject of the biography. Note: The OperaChaser citation is a Blogspot link but is used only to quote reviewer Paul Selar’s published review. It is attributed and used in a non-contentious context per WP:ABOUTSELF.

The “subscription required” status does not make a source unreliable or unverifiable (per WP:PAYWALL); the citations remain verifiable and policy-compliant. A citation for the Monk Parrots directorship has been added using the organization’s official site per WP:ABOUTSELF.

A complete, neutrally written and fully cited draft of this article is available at Draft:Luke Landric It reflects the same sourcing and naming corrections noted above, but expands the rest of the article for clarity and balance.

If other editors would like to review or workshop that version before any broader update or page-move discussion, feedback is welcome there.

Feedback and further suggestions are welcome before additional structural updates. – Avanturgy (talk) 09:40, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Use of "Luke Landric" vs long-standing "Luke Leonard"

Hi everyone, just a quick note for other editors keeping an eye on this page.

There’s an ongoing draft at Draft:Luke Landric that uses “Luke Landric” throughout, whereas most long-standing independent reliable sources (e.g. The New York Times, Texas Monthly, Sports Illustrated, The Austin Chronicle) continue to refer to the subject as “Luke Leonard.”

Before any page move or major rewrite based on the draft is taken forward, it may be worth reviewing whether the sourcing genuinely supports changing the article’s title, per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:BLP.

Posting here simply to get a few more eyes and perspectives on the matter.

Thanks, ~2025-33261-74 (talk) 09:04, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Lead quotations and article cleanup

Hi all — recently an editor removed the New York Times and Limelight quotations from the lead. To clarify: the intention was not to elevate these reviews above others, but to provide a concise summary of the article’s reliably sourced critical reception, per WP:LEAD (summarize key points) and WP:ARTBIO (include notable critical response).

The quotations represent:

• coverage from The New York Times (major independent source)
• coverage from Limelight, a professionally edited arts magazine
• both tied to specific productions, not general claims
• both quoted accurately and in context

Before restoring these, I wanted to invite discussion in case there are concerns about placement or phrasing.

Separately, I’d like to begin cleaning sections of the article to address the existing verification and advert tags. My plan is to remove résumé-like content and retain only material supported by reliable, independent sources. I will proceed gradually and welcome any input along the way.

Thanks for collaborating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avanturgy (talk • contribs)

Hi, my name is Polygnotus. Putting 2 positive quotes in the LEAD section, which is intended to provide a quick summary of the most important details about a topic, is of course a terrible idea. Please read WP:NPOV. Thank you. Polygnotus (talk) 13:10, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I share Polygnotus’s concerns.

To be frank, the idea of placing two isolated positive quotes in the lead, one from a single *New York Times* review and one from *Limelight*, gives the article a distinctly promotional slant. Neither reflects broad critical consensus, nor do they justify the weight being implied. The NYT reference is a passing remark about one production, and *Limelight* isn’t generally regarded as a major authority for establishing a subject’s notability or reputation.

At present, the article as a whole still reads very much like a résumé, with large sections unsourced or sourced only to affiliated organisations. Until the COI/advert issues are addressed and stronger, genuinely independent coverage is identified, it seems inappropriate to elevate selective praise into the opening paragraph.

Per WP:LEAD, WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE, the lead should summarise neutral, well-established facts, not cherry-picked promotional material.

Happy to discuss further, but I strongly feel these quotes belong in a properly contextualised section, if they belong in the article at all.

MontessoriMomma (talk) 13:30, 14 November 2025 (UTC)