Talk:RKO Keith's Theater (Flushing, Queens)/GA1

GA Review

Passed. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 14:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. Looking forward to reading it! —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I will be away from the Internet from now until this Saturday and will not be able to complete the review until then. Apologies for the delay, but I expect we'll be able to wrap it up quickly next weekend! —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to this review today. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	As is my usual practice, I've gone through and made prose tweaks myself to save us both time - if there are any changes you object to, let me know.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass, no issues.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Provisional pass, some sources a little difficult to assess (Women's Wear Daily, The Billboard, Queens Tribune) but almost certainly fine. The only one I have real concerns about is the piece by Anonymous in the Newsletter of the Queens Historical Society. Not only is it not attributed, the organization is an advocacy group. Since the information it's used for is doubly cited, I would just remove the citation to the newsletter.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass, no issues.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Pass, nothing found by Earwig or manual spot check. Some long names of organizations.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	On second thought, I think there is actually a slight expansion needed for the lead. The saga of the RKO Keith's is interesting from several angles - it's a story about landmark preservation, the difficulties of redevelopment, and the changes in Queens. Some of the articles, such as several from the NYTimes and others, have something to say that put the RKO Keith's in broader context. I think it would be good to incorporate some of that material about the RKO Keith's as emblematic of those changes in NYC to the body and especially to the lead. Pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Trimmed a few issues of overdetail, but nothing major. Let me know if there are any changes you object to. Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Removed a pair of sentences which unintentionally implied that the deterioration of Flushing was due to non-white population in the neighborhood increasing.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass, no issues of stability.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Pass, no issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	File:RKO Keith's Theatre (7192724810).jpg is slightly higher quality imo than File:RKO Keith Flushing jeh.JPG - I would swap the locations of the two images. The caption on the current infobox image is a little confusing - most of the article calls it "RKO Keith's" or "The RKO Keith's" but the caption uses "RKO Keith Flushing". Make consistent with text. Are there no publicly available images at all of the theater in its heyday? The first half of the article feels sparsely illustrated, given the amount of architectural detail. Issues addressed, pass.
	7. Overall assessment.

Thanks for the comments @Ganesha811. I only disagree with two removals - the replacement of the seats in 1950 modified the theater's capacity, and the decline of Flushing was a different matter from the growth of the Asian community. I've swapped the images and changed the caption, but unfortunately there are no freely available images of the theater's interior when it was open. I've also added some detail to the lead about the relationship between the Flushing Keith's and other NYC movie palaces, as well as about the preservation difficulties that the theater faced. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your re-additions look fine - the article is at GA standard and passes! Congrats to you and anyone else who worked on it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2022 (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.