Talk:Longacre Theatre/GA1

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Rublov in topic GA Review

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.


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

Reviewer: Rublov (talk · contribs) 17:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply


Hello, I will be reviewing this article shortly.

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

Infobox and lead

edit
  • named after the historical moniker of Times Square — advise rephrasing this. First of all, it would probably fit better in the previous sentence since the origin of its name has little to do with the number of seats or its current operator. It's also a bit difficult to understand. Perhaps it was designed by Henry B. Herts and named after the nearby Longacre Square, now Times Square?
  • Here and throughout, the the in the Shubert Organization should either be capitalized or omitted from the wikilink. Prefer the former as the title of the article is The Shubert Organization.
  • Does facade need to be linked? Also, given that the name of the article is Façade, should it be spelled with the cedilla?
    • I linked it because in previous reviews of other articles, reviewers have pointed out that this could be an uncommon term. As for the cedilla, I think the spelling with diacritics may be a WP:ENGVAR issue, and I'd rather not change it unless the diacritic is necessary. Epicgenius (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • the auditorium interiorauditorium doesn't work as an adjective here; the auditorium's interior? the interior of the auditorium? simply the auditorium?
  • Architectural description of the building, while nice, is in my opinion a bit too detailed for the lead. there are service entrances to the sides can certainly be omitted, and probably some other details as well.
  • housed several flops — is the use of housed here theater jargon? Normally you wouldn't speak of a theater "housing" a play.
  • returned... to legitimate use — even with the wikilink the use of "legitimate" in this sense is surprising. I'd recommend expanding it to legitimate theater use or otherwise rephrasing it.
  • gained a reputation for hosting few hits — bit unclear to me. Does it mean the theater had a reputation for being unsuccessful?
  • documented by the book The Season: A Candid Look at Broadway — unless the book is especially important I'd omit this.
    • Removed. According to one source, the book's publication led to a self-fulfilling cycle of the Longacre not hosting successful productions, but I could not find this in other sources. Epicgenius (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Site

edit
  • the surrounding area was generally developed with — repeated developed from the previous sentence; simply the surrounding area had is better.
  • a mixture of low-rise residences and industrial uses — the coordination of "residences" and "uses" doesn't work; industrial buildings perhaps?
  • previously occupied by four residences — I guess you mean simultaneously rather than in sequence? I think a row of four residences would help clarify.

Design

edit

Facade

edit

Interior

edit

History

edit
  • Don't wikilink "the" in "the Great Depression".
  • Manhattan's theater district had begun to shift from Union Square and Madison Square during the first decade of the 20th century. — seems irrelevant since we're talking about Times Square.
    • It's related to the previous sentence. Manhattan's theater district moved, from Union and Madison Squares, to Times Square during that time. It is also mentioned because the Longacre was part of this development boom. Epicgenius (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
      • I would put this sentence first then so that it flows chronologically. Also, might be worth noting that the movement was in a northern direction for readers unfamiliar with New York City geography. Ruбlov (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Development and early years

edit
  • Harry H. Frazee — just Frazee since you already introduced him. But maybe it would be better to introduce him here instead.
    • I removed the link here. Epicgenius (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
      • My comment was actually referring to the mention of Frazee in the first paragraph of "Development and early years"; you mentioned him one paragraph earlier, in the paragraph under the main "History" header. Now the first mention gives only his last name while the second mention gives his full name; this should be flipped. Ruбlov (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • The Longacre Theatre was one of nine theaters — Recommend beginning this paragraph with The Longacre opened on May 1, 1913 instead and making this the second sentence: It was one of nine theaters....

1920s to early 1940s

edit

Mid-1940s to 1960s

edit

1970s and 1980s

edit

1990s to present

edit
  • The court would process misdemeanor summonses isued in Midtown, reducing the backlog of cases at the New York City Criminal Court — "issued" is misspelled. But I'd recommend folding this into the previous sentence, e.g. setting up a community courtroom to process misdemeanor summonses.
  • This will be followed by a revival of Macbeth in early 2022 — has this happened?

Notable productions

edit
  • Does every play need two citations here?
    • I think having multiple refs in this section increases the verifiability of the productions (some shows are only recorded by Playbill and the Broadway League, while others are also recorded in the book refs). Epicgenius (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • What determines whether or not a production is notable enough to make this list?

Box office record

edit

See also

edit
  • Per MOS:LAYOUT, the portal bar doesn't belong here.

General comments

edit

Nice article. My concerns are mostly prose nitpicks which should be easily addressed. Putting on hold. Ruбlov (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Rublov: Thank you for your review. I have addressed the issues you brought up. Epicgenius (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Epicgenius: I left two follow-up comments on this review. But I'm going to go ahead and pass the article now. Congratulations! Ruбlov (talk) 02:11, 10 March 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.