Jump to content

Talk:Empire Theatre (42nd Street)/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]

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

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

Reviewer: Kting97 (talk · contribs) 01:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will start a review for this article. Kting97 (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still looking it over, will add more comments over the next few days. Kting97 (talk) 03:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just have the following comments. This is my first review, so I am putting this on hold so I can ask a second opinion. I am iffy it satisfies criteria 1a and 3b, but am satisfied with the rest.

Images –

  • No major issue with the images. Suggestions below.
  • The image of the original facade could have more detail. See MOS:CAPCONTEXT as the description on Wikimedia even says "Front of the Eltinge 42nd Street Theatre in 1912. Signs announce the new play Within the Law, which was the theater's first production." It also justifies why the image is in "History" not above in "Design - Facade".
  • The image with the scaffolding isn't particularly attractive, and there are better options which you used in arguably inappropriate places. For example – Under "Movie theater and decline" you have an image of the AMC theater when the text near it is about the 1940s to 70s, when it was the Laff-In. I also think the AMC at night image is inappropriate where it currently is, beside restoration discussions. I would suggest using one of those images in place of the AMC with scaffolding image. If there are no available images for the other sections of "History" I don't see the need to forcefully add AMC images. Also would suggest editing the caption to identify the object (the Empire Theater / AMC).
    • You're correct with regard to attractiveness. I did take some images of the theater a few months back, with the intention of adding them to the article, but have yet to upload these. As for why there are so many AMC images, I felt like it would not serve the reader to look at a wall of text without any illustrations, which is why I spaced the images throughout the article. But if you feel that they are irrelevant, I can remove them. Epicgenius (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources –

  • No major issues with the sources. Suggestions below.
  • For ref [42] Cinema Treasures, suggest adding Ross Melnick as author since it is mentioned in the site itself and he is a subject expert.
  • Some of your IBDB references seem to be doubled, see [60], [64], [67], [68], [71], [77], [79], [80], [81], [85], [88], [91], [93], [96], [104], [106], [107], [115], [117], [119], [120], [239], [240], [242], and [243].
  • The references [155] and [156] are the same.
  • I would suggest removing ref [22] since it is talking about AMC Empire 25 before it was even opened. There probably is a better source you have used after the opening so it is more accurate.
  • For ref [227] you can link the publicly available Variety article of the same that can be found online on the Variety website instead of ProQuest so that readers can see the source themselves. Actually think you can do that for all the Variety articles.
  • Similarly, for the McClintock 2011 ref, it seems to be available online so I suggest linking it. This can be done for the Hollywood Reporter articles.
      • I have added a URL for McClintock and for Hayes (2001) but can't find links for any of the other Hollywood Reporter articles, which is very strange. Actually, I'm having the same issue with Variety, especially with regard to articles published before the 2000s. It would be nice if a URL can be found for these older sources, but sometimes these just don't exist. Epicgenius (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Content –

  • Under "Lead"
    • No issues.
  • Under "Site"
    • See WP:NOTGUIDE This section goes into too much detail about the Theater District and the city block, in particular the second paragraph. I would suggest re-writing this to be more succinct and the reader could just be linked to Theater District or 42nd Street as the main.
      • I don't think that paragraph, in general violates WP:NOTGUIDE. It describes the existence of nearby buildings and gives context to the subject, rather than providing guidebook listings of things such as contact info and directions, which is not allowed. The area just has a very dense concentration of notable buildings including theaters. The article about the New Amsterdam Theatre (which is an FA), as well as other articles about theaters on the same block, do discuss adjacent structures. Although the information could also be included in the Theater District and 42nd Street articles, I do think that having a little context here would be good as well (perhaps I can add a map of the area). Nonetheless, I've removed a few sentences which are less relevant to the theater's location.

Epicgenius (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • "The theater was originally located at 236–242 West 42nd Street, but it has been moved about 168 feet (51 m) west of its original location." contradicts "The theater was relocated about 170 feet (52 m) west of its original location in 1998." in the lead. I only have access to ref [6] which does say 168 feet, but I want to ask where the 170 feet statistic came from, and could you quote ref [4] and [5]?
      • Source 5 says "Beautifully restored, picked up in its foundation and subsequently moved 168 feet". Source 4 doesn't mention the distance, so I have removed that ref and changed the template to 168 feet. Epicgenius (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Legitimate theater" should not be capitalized in the middle of a sentence.
    • Ref [11] - Is there a more updated source? Or are you referring specifically to the 1980s? Even if the latter, an environmental impact statement for a proposed hotel does not strike as the most relevant. I also do not think that this needs a reference as it is not disputed that the Theater District contains many theaters.
      • I thought this source was sufficient to cite the fact that the surrounding area has many theaters. The EIS is relevant, in my opinion, because such documents are generally created by the federal/state/local government and give neutral descriptions of the surrounding neighborhood (as opposed to sources published by developers, which may be biased in that regard). I have nonetheless removed the EIS, though, because I agree that this fact wouldn't be disputed. Epicgenius (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under "Design"
    • For the sake of flow and readability, I would suggest putting "Design" after "History". You start the "Design" section with two paragraphs on the history of the theater, which I understand because it provides context for the design, particularly the renovation. However, so as not to keep repeating the same information throughout the article, I think having the "History" section first would address that, allowing you to remove the first two paragraphs in "Design" so that the article just focuses on design in the "Design" section, perhaps just keeping the fact that it was designed by Lamb in the beginning.
      • I put the "Design" section first because, in my opinion, the physical description of the theater is most relevant to describing the theater. This section only contains a brief amount of historical context. In my opinion, I think this can be solved by just moving the info about Eltinge down to the "History" section, which I have done now. Epicgenius (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The facade of the Empire Theatre is made of terracotta and is square in shape, with relatively little ornamentation." sounds a bit awkward, "in shape" unnecessary, and "relative" uncertain. Based on the reference, what about – "The square facade of the Empire Theater is made of terracotta and features little ornamentation relative to other theaters of the time."
    • "The fourth story contains six recessed rectangular windows, which overlooked the offices of the theater's manager A. H. Woods and his brother Martin Woods." – Just want to check, was Martin also one of the managers? If so, "manager" should be plural "managers". I only have access to ref [30], which just says offices of A. H. Woods and his brother Martin, so does the other reference mentions if both brothers or just one of the brothers were managers?
      • A. H. Woods was the only manager. The Morrison ref actually doesn't say anything about managers; it just shows that there were six windows on the facade. I've removed that now. Epicgenius (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The proscenium was flanked by smaller arches, each of which contained two levels with two boxes." – Add "two boxes each" if it was, in fact, two boxes each, or "total" if between the two levels there were two boxes.
    • "The sounding board, above the proscenium arch, featured a mural depicting three robed women dancing to music. The French artist Arthur Brounet painted the mural." – Can be combined into one sentence for flow "The sounding board, above the proscenium arch, featured a mural painted by Arthur Bronet that depicts three robed women dancing to music" especially since you use the same ref [37].
    • "According to The New York Times, the women depicted in the mural may have actually been based on different outfits Eltinge wore." remove "actually".
  • Under "History"
    • The first paragraph seems a bit unnecessary since you describe the area in the "Site" section already. This could hinder readability so I suggest going straight into Woods leasing the theater.
      • Since I've moved down the info about the theater's original name, I think this paragraph may still be relevant. Besides, the fact that the Broadway theater district moved northward in the 1900s isn't mentioned beforehand, and I think it helps to give a little more context. Epicgenius (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Under "Legitimate shows"
      • On the face of it, "With only 829 seats, the Eltinge was smaller than most of the area's other theaters." seems to contradict "The theater had 750 seats on three levels." in the "Design" section. Since the 829 seats is mentioned after "the Eltinge's stage was enlarged in advance of the 1917–1918 theatrical season" I assume 750 was the original, but perhaps you could include somewhere in "History" the 750 before the enlargement. I can't access the references so please double check that the assumption I am making here is accurate.
      • Ref [73] "The Eltinge did not host many long-lasting productions during the 1920s, in part because of the growing popularity of larger theaters and because Woods was busy producing other shows." – the cited source says "the Eltinge was not awash in hits, perhaps because Woods was busy producing all over Broadway and on the road." Unsure if your source supports the claim that the lack of long-lasting productions was "in part" because of how busy Woods was, since it seems the authors of the source are merely speculating by saying "perhaps". Suggest you remove the latter part of your sentence, or re-write it to align with the source.
      • "The Demi-Virgin was the subject of a lengthy legal dispute regarding whether it was an "indecent" show, although Woods ultimately won that dispute." – I think "although" is not the appropriate word, perhaps "The Demi-Virgin was the subject of a lengthy legal dispute regarding whether it was an "indecent" show, which Woods ultimately won."
      • "Woods continued to produce several short-lived plays at the Eltinge in the mid-1920s, featuring young actresses." – Rephrase so the featuring young actresses connects to plays: "In the mid-1920s, Woods continued to produce several short-lived plays at the Eltinge, some of which featured young actresses."
      • I still need to double check the sources for the statistics, but on random spotcheck it seems accurate.
    • Under "Burlesque"
      • "This was due in part to the Depression and in part to a general decline in the Broadway theater industry in the mid-20th century; from 1931 to 1950, the number of legitimate theaters decreased from 68 to 30." – Can you add what "this" refers to: rise in burlesque theaters? Also, I don't have access to these sources, please share where the sources come to the conclusion that the rise in burlesque was due in part to the Depression. If it is just the statistics, might be OR.
        • "This" actually refers to the decline of legitimate theaters, not the rise of burlesque. Many Broadway theaters were either closed and merely demolished, or they were converted into something else, often a movie theater or a broadcast studio. I've fixed this now. Epicgenius (talk) 23:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Add "and opponents of burlesque tried to have the licenses revoked."
    • Under "Movie theater and decline"
      • Be consistent in the name of the theater. Use of Eltinge when it was already the Empire.
      • "The Brandt family acquired the Laff-Movie, along with the neighboring Liberty Theatre, in December 1944." – Clarify the timeline as you mention Mage leased the theater from the Brandts after the burlesque license expired. Was it Mage who opened the Laff-In?
      • "Brandt announced in August 1953 that he would renovate the Laff-Movie, showing feature films." – Clarify, as in showing "only" feature films, distinguished from "comedic shorts and feature films" above?
      • What are "showcase films"?
      • "However, the area was in decline; the Brandts' theaters only had three million visitors by 1977, about half of the number in 1963." – Should be "in 1977".
    • Under "Restoration"
      • "One plan for the site, in 1978, called for razing several buildings in the area to create a park, including the Empire." – Reword "called for razing several buildings in the area, including the Empire, to create a park."
      • "The City at 42nd Street plan was announced in December 1979 as part of a proposal to restore West 42nd Street around Times Square." – To distinguish more clearly from the park plan: "Another plan, called the City at 42nd Street, was announced..."
      • "However, the Empire's small capacity made it unsuitable as a legitimate theater, so the interior was likely to be demolished and renovated into a restaurant." – Remove "However" as the previous sentence mentioned only five theaters, not including the Empire, were planned to be converted back to legitimate use.
      • "Mayor Ed Koch wavered in his support of the plan, referring to it as a "Disneyland on 42nd Street"." – Was the "Disneyland" comment positive or negative? Since you say "wavered" it suggests it could be either.
      • "The LPC had started to consider protecting theaters as landmarks in 1982, including the Empire Theatre, with discussions continuing over the next several years" – "including the Empire Theater" should be after "theaters" or "landmarks"
      • "While the LPC granted landmark status to many Broadway theaters starting in 1987, it deferred decisions on the exterior and interior of the Empire Theatre." – Remove "starting"
        • This is technically correct, as the LPC started designating theaters in July 1987 and continued to designate them through early 1988 (I think the last theater on the list was designated in late January 1988). Epicgenius (talk) 23:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Under this plan, the Empire and Liberty theaters would be renovated, although the extent of the renovations is unclear." – Consistent past tense, "was unclear"
      • Use AMC consistently, the rogue AMC Theaters, after having used just AMC, looks awkward.
      • "The rear of the theater was being braced," – "was braced"
      • "Instead, the structure was initially moved 30 feet (9.1 m) on February 22" – should be "As a result" instead of "Instead" since the previous sentence explained the postponement
      • "in New York City that had ever been relocated" – "to have been relocated"
    • Under "Multiplex"
      • Should be consistent in calling it the Empire 25 throughout, distinguishing it from the Empire Theater.
      • "The theater opened in April 2000" – Since you have been talking about the various incarnations of the theater perhaps be more specific than just "the theater", i.e. "The theater reopened as the AMC Empire 25". As mentioned above, would suggest removing ref [22] since it refers to the theater about to open, when the claim here is that it had, past tense, opened in April 2000.
      • "The Empire 25 was estimated to have cost $70 million, which would make it the most expensive movie theater ever built, but AMC refused to disclose the construction cost." – The claim "which would make it the most expensive movie theater ever built" is not supported by ref [227] which only speculates "may be the most pricey theater ever erected". Also, it is not "estimated" but "suggested" to have cost $70 million by supposed insiders.
        • "Built" and "erected" are basically synonymous, which is why I phrased it that way. The source said the insiders "pegged it at roughly $70 million"; I described their calculation as an "estimate" only because the source used the word "roughly" rather than an exact number. Epicgenius (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • "In its first year of operation, the AMC Empire 25 struggled to compete with the E-Walk, and it did not screen many major films, in part because of a lack of successful feature films." – Should it be "as it did not" since the references suggest that it failed to make high returns because of lack of major films shown?
      • "subsequently shuttered" is an awkward phrase.
      • "It was especially popular on holiday weekends; for instance, it hosted 131 screenings of 14 separate films on Christmas Day in 2009." – Unable to access source, could you quote to verify the statistic? Thanks!
        • The source says "Several big films opened yesterday, including "Sherlock Holmes," staring Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law, and "It's Complicated," with Meryl Streep, Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin. Empire 25 showed 14 different films throughout the day - a total of 131 screenings over 14 hours." Epicgenius (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The Empire 25 remained AMC's flagship multiplex in the 2020s." – Should be present tense since we are still in the 2020s: "remains". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kting97 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kting97: Thanks for the comments so far. I have addressed or replied to some of your initial comments and am working on the rest. Epicgenius (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, will look over the changes, pretty full tomorrow but definitely will get to it the day after! As I mentioned above, since this is my first review I asked for a second opinion. I actually reached out to someone on the GA mentor page and they got back to me after looking at this review and just mentioned that I should look over / mention sources I looked over to verify accuracy and check that the wording is different enough from the sources so I will also get to doing that (perhaps not all but a handful of random ones) in the next couple of days. Thank you for your patience! I am actually editing a Wiki on a local building and going through your article has definitely given me a better understanding of what a good building / architecture page looks like so thank you for that. Best, Kting97 (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kting97, no problem, take your time. Thank you for your detailed comments - for a first-time review, it's very comprehensive, and I think Eddie gave you some really good advice. It may take me a few days to address your remaining points, but I'll get to all of them soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you for your patience, I suddenly got swamped at work but will get back to this shortly. Kting97 (talk) 02:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

No other grammar mistakes are found. Nice article! The person who loves reading (talk) 03:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The person who loves reading, thanks for the comments. I have now fixed most of these issues, except for the following:
  • In the first two decades of the 20th century, eleven venues for legitimate theatre were built within one block of West 42nd Street between Seventh and Eighth Avenues. "legitimate theatre" --> "the legitimate theatre" - I think it will read more awkwardly if I phrased it as "eleven venues for the legitimate theatre". "Legitimate theatre" is a type of theatre, so this is like saying "eleven venues for the film".
  • William Brandt said in 1953 that any of his 42nd Street theaters could be converted to a legitimate house within 24 hours' notice, but producers did not take up his offer. "24 hours' notice" --> "24 hours of notice" - Similarly, "within 24 hours of notice" feels incorrect to me, for some reason. "With 24 hours of notice", maybe, but that means the same thing as "within 24 hours".
  • The large size of the steel columns necessitated that the size of the AMC multiplex be reduced slightly. "be" --> "is" - This would cause the sentence to be syntactically incorrect, i.e. "The large size ... necessitated that the size of the AMC multiplex is reduced slightly".
– Epicgenius (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! The person who loves reading (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Epicgenius for your patience and talk for the additional comments! It looks good to me after reading it over again a few times. I understand that a chunk of unbroken text would look quite awkward, shame there aren't more historical images of the theater that can be used. If I could suggest: removing or at least moving the image of the AMC near "Movie theater and decline" because it is a bit confusing as you are referring to the Laff-Movie but the image of the AMC may first suggest (to a lazy reader, which we will have to acknowledge as part of the audience of this text) that the text is referring to the AMC.

Other than that, happy to close this review and assign it as a GA. Again, thank you so much for your patience and your understanding as this is my first review attempt! Kting97 (talk) 04:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kting97, thank you again for the detailed review. I appreciate it. I have also removed that image now. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:38, 5 April 2023 (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:Empire_Theatre_(42nd_Street)/GA1&oldid=1148376315"