| 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.
|
- Doing final prose check now.
- Pass, no issues. One last coverage issue I noticed (see below).
|
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
|
|
| 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.
|
|
|
|
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).
|
- Do we have guidance on whether we consider IBDB reliable? I know Imdb is generally considered unreliable because it relies on user-submitted info in many ways.
- I've found some prior discussions that indicate a consensus that IBDB is reliable. Pass.
- Yeah. Despite the similar name to IMDb, IBDB is more heavily vetted, is much smaller in scope, and requires documentation for any corrections. It's published by the Broadway League, which basically defines what Broadway theaters are. Epicgenius (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
|
2c. it contains no original research.
|
|
|
|
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
|
- Nothing found by Earwig or manual spot check. Pass.
|
| 3. Broad in its coverage:
|
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
|
- The section on the development of the theater feels a little sparse - when was it actually constructed? Was there any reaction from the Shuberts? The quick lease to the Shuberts is interesting given the apparent rivalry - feels like it could use some more explication.
- Sadly there is not much info about the actual construction of the theater. In general, the details of Broadway theaters' construction were not reported in news media, unlike the construction of office buildings, which were often given extensive coverage. Epicgenius (talk) 03:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a few words to explain the situation. Epicgenius (talk) 04:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- One more thing I noticed while doing the prose check - the lead makes no mention of the shows which the theater has hosted. It's a major part of the article's content and should be mentioned in the lead. I would remove a sentence or two on architecture from the lead and add a couple sentences on the most prominent or long-running shows the theater has been home to. Ganesha811 (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
|
- The article feels too detailed both in the architectural sections and in the History section. Not every production of every show at the theater needs to be mentioned - a shorter summary, picking out highlights and particularly successful/unsuccessful shows, would work better. On the architecture, it's so heavily reliant on a single source (the Landmarks Preservation Commission) that I think a higher level of summarization is called for - this level of detail on the architecture is too much given how much it has been covered in reliable sources. I could go through and make trims myself, but I think you're better suited to do it first if you would prefer.
- My take is that the architectural section has just the right amount of detail, since these decorations are historically significant for city-landmark status. In other words, these specific decorations are important to the reason why the theater was designated as a landmark; they would not be mentioned otherwise. Similar articles like Cort Theatre and Palace Theatre (New York City) have this level of detail for the respective sections that are designated as landmarks, with more generic detail for the non-landmark sections. As for reference-source balance, I don't think GAN necessitates that the majority of details be mentioned in multiple references; that's a matter I believe is more suited for FAC. I did realize that I had a source I haven't used as much (Morrison 1999), so I've added that now. I've also taken a stab at condensing both sections. Epicgenius (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the history section, that's actually what I've done. Many more shows were produced at the theater that haven't been mentioned here. I have mentioned only the shows that are also described in the primary books/reports I've referenced. If you're concerned about specific issues in the design/history sections, feel free to bring them up, and I can address these. Epicgenius (talk) 03:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for making those changes - I would go further, personally, but it's a matter of reasonable disagreement, and at this point not something that would keep the article from GA. Pass.
|
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
|
|
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
|
- No edit wars or other issues. Pass.
|
| 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.
|
|
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
|
- The caption for the lead image doesn't need to mention Hamilton, just 'The theater in 2019' or similar would be fine
- Are there no images available of the stage? That's the only thing the article is missing.
- Unfortunately, there is not. It's a wonder there are even images of the theater, since Broadway theaters tend to not have any interior photographs other than really old ones. Epicgenius (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the images feel placed at random - the "Service door" image, "view from the east", and "theater entrance" pics don't really have anything to do with the text alongside them. If you move them up into the architectural section, I don't mind you putting some of them on the left to make them fit well. We could probably lose the "service door" image altogether.
- Honestly, I only included these images to fill the empty space in these subsections, since there's no real illustrations of the theater from that era. The "view from the east" image may be relevant, though, because it does show a production that took place in that era. Epicgenius (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I think it would be better to move or remove them rather than just use them to fill empty space. Let's keep the "View from the East" one and I would delete the other two. The stage door photo is not really needed or very high-quality, and the "theater entrance" image mostly duplicates what's illustrated by the lead image. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. These were both my images, so I can't say I was totally uninvolved in putting the images there, but I have removed them. Epicgenius (talk) 03:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
|
7. Overall assessment.
|
|
