Talk:Apollo Theater/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Reconrabbit (talk · contribs) 23:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Hello, as someone familiar with (but by no means a historian of) the Apollo Theater, I intend to take on this review. Comments will come procedurally as I work through it. Reconrabbit 23:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Facade: The separation between the vertical sign and the marquee is a little awkward, mainly because they were installed/renovated at the same time. (Fixed)

   Cohen and Schiffman operation: "Nonetheless" is a little confusing.

   1990s: Kind of a sudden shift from the early 90s paragraph to 'mostly empty' in 1998; contrast or move context from later to earlier in the paragraph?

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Music: There are a lot of names in the first two paragraphs that might be a bit easier to read if they were put into a list(s).

   On the other hand, putting names into a list might be difficult due to the disparate time periods and genres of the performers and would be a significant break from the format of the rest of the article. I'll leave it to your discretion.

2. 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:

   B. 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):

   Based on this revision: None of the sources used could be construed as unreliable for the purposes they are used for as far as I can tell. Also, every statement that could demand a citation has one. Incredible work. I haven't been able to analyse the text of every citation, but spotted a couple reference errors that can be fixed easily: [86] may have duplicated fields, [217] link can be changed since it's a redirect, and [437] might have the wrong publishing details.

   Specific references I've verified: [5], [65], [122], [231], [257], [276], [290], [323], [312], [360], [357], [446], [448], [528]. Unfortunately I don't have access to most of the relevant articles through my college (CUNY)'s ProQuest subscription.

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Auditorium: There is a lot of minutiae regarding the interior design here, though I don't know if it could be done more concisely or without requiring knowledge of the architectural terms without being vague. (Actioned on)

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   I don't know if File:HSApolloMinksy.jpg has the right copyright. Most likely public domain rather than CC BY-SA? Still unsure about this one - depends on publication date. Yann resolved this by moving it to Commons per this discussion.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Gorillaz photo caption could be more specific. It would be nice to have contemporary photos from earlier decades but I imagine copyright is an issue there.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Thanks for taking a look @Reconrabbit. I'll take a look at these later. – Epicgenius (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll get to some of these tonight. A quick comment regarding the auditorium section: although it does have some detailed descriptions, this is in line with the descriptions of other landmarked theaters in NYC. However, I can try to slim it down a bit, seeing as how the Apollo was landmarked not for its architectural importance (as many Broadway theaters were) but for its historical importance. Epicgenius (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I've finished checking the prose (made some very minor corrections to punctuation along the way). Will get to checking sources next. The way you've written and sourced this makes it seem almost impossible for plagiarism to be a factor so I will check that off. Regarding the theater description, the only thing I would cut down is the second-to-last paragraph describing every motif in the proscenium. Reconrabbit 17:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again, I appreciate it. I will get to these by Thursday. I've fixed the following issues so far:

• Facade: I combined the info about the signs.
• Cohen and Schiffman operation: I removed "nonetheless".
• Auditorium: I combined the third and fourth paragraphs and reduced some of the architectural detail. Epicgenius (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Reconrabbit, I think I have addressed your last remaining point (converting the music section into a list). I have converted the 1930s-1960s paragraphs into a list format. However, there are relatively few names in the final paragraph, which covers the 1970s to 2020s, so I have left that alone for now. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Epicgenius, great! I've checked everything off. List is very readable and makes it easier to find particular items than the prose. I agree with your judgment on the later decades. Review has been passed, thank you for your great work here. Reconrabbit 17:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)