Talk:Lena Horne Theatre/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rlink2 (talk · contribs) 18:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was one of the first GAs on the list so I'm also going to review this one. I think I work best when I work multiple passes through the article, because each time I will see something I didn't the first time.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Maybe where you have The facade is divided into two sections. it should be The facade is divided into two sections: ..... It seems more natural to me, but not a big deal. What's the standard for numbering? I see in the "1960s and 1970s" section there is one sentence that says five-performance and another that says 176-performance. Is it all supposed to be all Arabic numerals (so 5-performance instead of five-performance)? Or am I missing something.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Regarding lead section, there are alot of words that I didn't know until I hovered over the blue link. MOS:INTRO states that we should avoid difficult-to-understand terminology and symbols. in the lede and that Where uncommon terms are essential, they should be placed in context, linked and briefly defined. Again, maybe its different for theatre articles, so please let me know if that is the case. Regarding the layout, it looks good to me. I will say, that to me, the title Broadway revival is a bit unintuitive. I "get" what you are trying to do with it, but I feel like it could use a better name. Correct me if I am wrong however. There are also red links, is that intended?

I will also say that the sentence below Other design features looks like it was cut off from another part of the article (Next to the boxes is a three-centered proscenium arch.). I would say that There is a three-centered prosenium arch next to the boxes.. In general, there are many other sentences that seem "chopped". Not saying its a bad thing, or that it should be changed, just something to note.

And regarding the lead section again, I am not sure if the sentence The theater's interior was refurbished in 2000. belongs there, given that there is only 3 sentences about it in the actual article. Could be wrong, let me know if I am.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Yes. I archived all the citations with web.archive.org, archive.today and/or ghostarchive.org to protect against linkrot, it's good practice especially for articles that are about to be GAs.

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
Ehh, again I am not a theatre expert, but the sources (Playbill, IBDB, NYTimes) look reliable to me.

C. It contains no original research:
Yes, mostly no original research from what I can see. I do have some questions: for the content below the header Stage house section there is only one citation. I am assuming that one citation has the info to back up everything in that paragraph, right?

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Not any I can see. But I don't have access to any of the copyvio tools, maybe someone else can chime in regarding that.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
Yes, it stays on topic for the most part. My only quibble is the short paragraph below "history" - not immedaitely obvious what the general situation in Times Square and productions has to do with this particular theatre. I know the information there is relevant, but it is not clear that it is maybe. So possibly clear that up?

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
I am not too knowledegeable about theatre articles, but you did go into alot of detail, even into the type of brick used for the building and almost every play performed there. Again, not sure if thats something typical for articles like this.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Well, its an article about a theatre, so theres not much room for opinions. I would say its neutral, yes.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Yes, article history is stable
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Images all tagged. I see you took these yourself. That's impressive. Good work. See if you can find any free images of inside the building, it would be nice but certainly not required.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Yes
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Awaiting response to above

Overall, good job. Rlink2 (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlink2: Thanks for the comments. I'll address a few of them now, but I don't have time to fix the remainder until tomorrow.

Regarding the issue with "The facade consists of two sections", I have fixed this in the lead.

What's the standard for numbering? - per MOS:NUMERAL "Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words." So that is what I have done.

MOS:INTRO states that we should avoid "difficult-to-understand terminology and symbols." in the lede and that "Where uncommon terms are essential, they should be placed in context, linked and briefly defined" - Sometimes I have difficulty determining when a term is difficult to understand for others, especially in architecture but also in other subjects. Are there specific terms you are confused about? I can add a brief explanation to these.

I will say, that to me, the title "Broadway revival" is a bit unintuitive. - This is another thing I've found to be pretty common. Until you brought it up, it hadn't occurred to me that "Broadway revival" could be confusing, so I've added a link.

For the lead, I've added a little more info about the 21st century.

I do have some questions: for the content below the header Stage house section there is only one citation. I am assuming that one citation has the info to back up everything in that paragraph, right? - Correct.

My only quibble is the short paragraph below "history" - not immedaitely obvious what the general situation in Times Square and productions has to do with this particular theatre. - Yes, I will do that soon. Generally, this is meant to show that Times Square's theater district was well-established by the time the Chanins came around.

but you did go into alot of detail, even into the type of brick used for the building and almost every play performed there. - Heh, yeah, I did go into quite a bit of detail about the plays, but this is typical of GAs on Broadway theaters (about half of them are now good articles). I tended to mention only the notable productions described in at least one of the bibliographical sources. As for the brick, that's typical of my architectural articles as well.

See if you can find any free images of inside the building, it would be nice but certainly not required. - I am actually in the process of looking for these images right now. This theater was completed in 1926, so any images of the theater published that year have just recently fallen out of copyright. Epicgenius (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlink2, I've completed most of the above, except for two things. First, regarding the first paragraph of "History", all of that info does seem pertinent to mention. The Shubert brothers are mentioned as they leased the Mansfield shortly after it was completed, and the Chanins actually hired Krapp because of his experience for the Shuberts. Second, I unfortunately have still not been able to track down images of the theater's interior. – Epicgenius (talk) 06:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: Ok thats fine. I gave the article a second look and it seems good to me. Good job on this. I think its ready to be promoted now that you have made the improvements, what do you think? Rlink2 (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlink2, thanks. It's ultimately your call on whether to promote, but I think I have resolved all of the issues you brought up. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. Keep up the good work. I look forward to reviewing more of your GAs Rlink2 (talk) 01:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]