Talk:Baralt Theatre/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: KJP1 (talk · contribs) 09:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pleased to pick this one up. KJP1 (talk) 09:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quick fail criteria assessment

The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
The article contains copyright violations – see Wikipedia:Copyright violations.
The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

All looks ok. Main review to follow.

Main review

1. It is reasonably well written.

a (prose)

Generally fine, but some comments below.

Lead

General - at a single para., it's a little short and doesn't cover the full content of the article. Perhaps a second para. on why its film showing history makes it a significant cultural institution.
Plaza Bolivar - not a deal-breaker, but I find redlinks in the lead a bit jarring.
Infobox - again, no deal-breaker, but any reason there's no infobox? {{Infobox theatre}}.

Early theatre

"request to build a theatre was administered to the Court of Spain" - a couple of things. Do you "administer" a request? "was submitted"? and what was the "Court of Spain"? Assuming we're talking the Spanish government, as the administering colonial power at the time, perhaps something like that?
"Still, the first theatre began construction in 1839" - the "still" is a bit colloquial. Is it necessary?
"where the theatre still sits" - Don't buildings "stand" rather than sit?

Reconstructions

"Zulia" - link?
"The oil industry was changing the economy and society, and Pérez Soto felt a new design was necessary" - not quite getting the consequential link, here? Is it something like, "The increased prosperity of the country/city, brought about by/arising from the development of the oil industry, led Perez Soto to want a building more in keeping with the city's enhanced status"?
"was designed by León Jerome Hoet" - Leon Hoet [nl] has a link on the Dutch Wikipedia. Better than nothing?

Specifications

"notable design features" - unless there's a cite that says they're notable, I wonder if this is a bit POV?
"which have been described as art nouveau" - by whom?
"large concrete latticework to allow ventilation" - are we missing a word after latticework? "windows/grilles"?
"cool air from an ice turbine" - what's an "ice turbine"?
"a patio and a small outhouse" - generally, an outhouse is a lavatory. Is that what you mean? If it's the building to the left in the main image, would something like pavilion work better?

Monument and legacy

"This is seen as the first step to becoming a World Heritage Site" - by whom?
"by Paolo D'onghia" - is the "o" actually lower case?
"discovered the original foundations of the building" - isn't it "the foundations of the original building", rather than earlier foundations of this building?
"the first Venezuelan films on 28 January 1897 - "the first ever Venezuelan-made films"?

Captions

second photo - "The theatre as it looked shortly after completed in 1883" - "completion".
third photo - "Teatro Baralt, with other monuments on the street seen behind" - "to the right"?

b (MoS)

All looks ok to me.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (references)

Everything looks appropriately referenced. However, see below.

b (citations to reliable sources)

The first, and lesser, problem is that all the sources are in Spanish, and my Spanish is very, very poor. That said, with judicious use of Google translate, I can work out what they're supporting and they look ok. But the second issue is that there aren't many of them, and the second-most heavily-used are three YouTube videos. Guidance on using videos as sources is given here, Wikipedia:Video links, but I'm going to need to take advice. That said, the videos themselves look professional and reliable.

c (OR)

No indication of OR.

d (No evidence of plagiarism or copyright violations)

All looks ok - 5.7% on Earwig.

3. It is broad in its scope

a (major aspects)

I wonder if there's more to be said on the recent history? Apart from the sentence on tours, there's nothing for the last 20 years. Anything on current/recent performances there? Festivals, etc.?

b (focused):

This is fine.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy

All neutral.

5. It is stable

All good.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

Some nice images. The first one suggests that the restoration did a very good job - the building looks in great condition.

b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

A couple of the captions need tweaking.

7. Overall: Pass/Fail:

An interesting and well-researched article on a building that has clear national importance. Will place on hold now for you to consider my comments, and hopefully for me to get feedback on the YouTube sources question. Drop me a line here if you've any queries. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 12:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK - good to go on the Youtubes. At 10, it is still a little cite-lite, but if that's what there is, that's what there is. An attractive building, now with a Good Article. Congratulations. KJP1 (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Thanks for the review, suggestions have been very useful! Responses below:

Added another short para to the lead
Removed red link until the page is made; there are several plazas with the name and it could take a while to built it
I don’t see any particular value for an infobox in this instance – both variations on the name are in bold, the top image is a featured image that stands by itself, and it’s not a complex enough topic to need the ‘in brief’ that infoboxes can provide other articles
Made recommended adjustments in Early theatre
And in Reconstructions
Added information in the first sentence of Specifications, and removed ‘notable’
There isn’t information in the source on the nature of the concrete latticework – being concrete rather than metal, I couldn’t guess to what it’s referring
Clarified ice turbine – a cheaper way of creating air conditioning
See, outhouse in all real estate listings I’ve read has always just meant an extra building on the property, as in Outhouse (disambiguation). But since North American readers make up the majority, I’ve changed this.
Clarified WHS statement in Monument and legacy
The ‘o’ in D’onghia is lower case (i.e. this source)
Made foundations correction
Changed to “Venezuelan-made” – in another article with basically the exact same sentence, I’ve been told using ‘ever’ is redundant
Made recommended edits to captions
Re sources: there’s basically nothing written about the theatre outside of Venezuela. The videos are from architectural professionals and historians and created in collaboration between a Zulian university and the theatre’s preservation foundation. They’re about the best you can get on the topic, probably only ranking behind a full book written by the same people (which doesn’t seem to exist).
The theatre is currently a functional cinema and performance space, but the only source that actively says this is its official website (which is also at .ve and likely blocked in many places). In 2015 the air conditioning got fixed (per IAM Venezuela) – there isn’t much else, as the minimal coverage is focused on its heritage status. In the top image, you can see a large poster for the film The Return.
~~It does host the National short film festival, and when I can find some good sources for that, I’ll add it in!~~ Added this and other related info.

Kingsif (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@KJP1: Have you heard more on the video sourcing yet? Kingsif (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]