Talk:Palace Theatre (New York City)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GhostRiver (talk · contribs) 19:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Comma after "it became a cinema in the 1930s"
Missing space in "in1965"
"and the Palace reopened as a Broadway theater in 1966" → "and reopened the venue as a Broadway theatre the following year"
- Done all of these. Epicgenius (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"thirty-two or thirty-six" → "32 or 36" per MOS:NUM
- Done Epicgenius (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The steel-and-concrete "super columns"" → "These steel and concrete structures"
- Done Epicgenius (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"they had leased the site. The partners planned to construct a venue called the Palace Theatre on the site." → "they had leased the site with plans to construct a venue called the Palace Theatre."
"subsequently said he would use the Palace for vaudeville." → "subsequently recanted and announced his intentions to use the space for vaudeville."
- Done both of these. Epicgenius (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"guests, only for the balcony seating to not even be filled." → "guests and still struggled to fill the balcony seats."
No commas needed around "in particular"
"demanded increasing salaries" → "demanded increased salaries"
- Done all of these. Epicgenius (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"but flipped several more times between film-only and vaudeville-before-film formats over the next two years." → "and spent the next two years flipping between film-only and vaudeville-before-film formats."
"started erecting" → "began to erect"
"television's popularity" → "the popularity of television"
- Done all of these. Epicgenius (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"city-landmark status in 1987, since Silverstein would have to build around the theater if it were a landmark." → "city-landmark status in 1987; if approved, Silverstein would have to build around the theater"
- Done Epicgenius (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Link "the 1951 MGM film" to An American in Paris (film)
- Done Epicgenius (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Totally okay if the answer is no, but is there anything about how the pandemic might have impacted renovations?
- Ironically, the pandemic has not impacted the construction industry all that much. If anything, the pandemic would've made it easier to reduce disruption to the public, since the theater was already closed. The bigger issue was getting permits from various city agencies and from neighboring property owners, but the lifting is happening right now. Epicgenius (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Change subhead to "Alleged haunting"
"swinging in the air" → "who swings in the air"
Use the convert template on "18 feet"
"in which the acrobats are" → "in which the acrobats were"
""cast from one to the other."" → ""cast from one to the other"." per MOS:LQ
The New York Times should be italicized
- Done all of these. Incidentally, this is the only section I didn't edit significantly, other than replacing the blog references that the section used before. Epicgenius (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[57] (Wertheim) needs an ISBN
[106] (Laurie Jr.) needs a publisher and an ISBN
- Done Epicgenius (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I deserve a drink for combing through 250+ sources
- Lol. Would a ginger ale work fine? Epicgenius (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Photos are all properly licensed and relevant (no surprise)
No stability concerns in the revision history
Earwig score looks great at 6.5%
Same as with Sondheim, consistent theater/theatre spelling would be appreciated
- This is the only thing I didn't touch yet. Before I fix this, I did notice something after the Sondheim review. It turns out that, while "theatre" is preferred in British varieties of English and "theater" in American varieties (at least for theater buildings), some Americans actually make a distinction of theater as a building vs. theatre as an art form. As a general rule, it doesn't really matter, but I want to know if you think the spelling should be standardized regardless of whether it's referring to the building or the art form. Epicgenius (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Putting on hold for now; as always, feel free to ping me with questions. — Ghost River 22:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GhostRiver: Thanks for the review again. I've done all of these except for one, which I have a question about, since I noticed there may be a distinction between the theater as a building and theatre as an art form. Epicgenius (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Epicgenius Being a certified Theater Person (getting trapped beneath a stage once gives me my credentials, shut up) I do tend to use the building/art form distinction. I would be fine with either keeping it that way (in which case there are some areas where -re would need to be changed to -er, particularly in the phrase "Broadway theatre/er"), or with standardizing to -re all the way through, as that's the proper name. — Ghost River 23:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  @GhostRiver, that makes sense. I've standardized all the uses of the building-theater vs. art-theatre now. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Looks good now, happy to pass! — Ghost River 02:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]