Talk:Hayes Theater/GA1

GA Review

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) 13:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. Looking forward to another NY theater! Ganesha811 (talk) 13:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: I've completed the review, and by my lights this article is at GA. Not passing it quite yet to give you a chance to look at the prose and detail tweaks I made and see if there are any you would object to. Otherwise, we're all set!

@Ganesha811: Thanks for the comments. For some reason, I didn't see your review until now - it must be a problem with the bot, as this page was actually created and deleted twice. Regarding your edit to the page, the only thing I really had an issue with was the deletion of the info about where the foyer and secondary lobby are in relation to each other. The arrangement of the theater is a bit unusual in that the emergency exit doesn't lead directly to the street but instead requires going through the foyer and secondary lobby. (Incidentally, the lack of a rear door means that sets have to be loaded through the foyer and secondary lobby.) Additionally, I think the description of the theater building in the lead should go above the history. Other than that, I think your revisions are all right. Epicgenius (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Go ahead and restore that information - and if there's a source to back it up, we could mention that it's unusual, since that gives context for the reader. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I have restored that detail and am trying to see if there's a reliable source that explicitly mentions that the arrangement is unusual. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok! Either way, it shouldn't prevent the article being a GA. Passing it now! Congrats to you and anyone else who worked on it. Ganesha811 (talk) 23:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

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.	For the most part, as I usually do, I'll go through and make minor prose tweaks myself to save us both time. If there are any changes you don't support, we can discuss here. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC) Made some changes, nothing major. Prose looks good. Pass.
	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).	The Daily News is a tabloid, but I see it's generally considered reliable aside from headlines - no issues there. A few theater industry sources I'd never heard of (Back Stage, etc) but they all seem fine. BroadwayWorld.com stands out but nothing actually problematic. Pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass, no issues with OR found.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Pass, nothing found by Earwig or manual spot check.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Broad coverage, nothing else notable found - pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	I removed some architectural detail and a few phrases elsewhere during the prose review - let me know if there are any you object to particularly! Discussed - pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No neutrality issues found. Pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars, no recent major expansions. 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.	No issues, pass.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Well-illustrated. The caption for the infobox image could be expanded slightly ("Hayes Theater in 2022" or similar), but pass in any case.
	7. Overall assessment.

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.