Talk:Roseland Theater/Archive 1

Sources

• http://books.google.com/books?id=58YgCzBYwU8C&pg=PA779&lpg=PA779&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false
• http://www.wweek.com/portland/blog-7986-starry_night_killer_larry_hurwitz_released_from_prison.html
• http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-4189-1990.html
• http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat=19920726&id=rdVWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=4usDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3753,6090313
• http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/best-of-portland-1988/Content?oid=850511

--Another Believer _(Talk) 03:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/1997/06/16/newscolumn3.html?page=all

--Another Believer _(Talk) 16:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

•  Doing... Reminder to self. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Notes / To Do

• find source to verify 1933 construction
• info about church
• picture(s) of building

--Another Believer _(Talk) 18:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Given the building used to house a club, and since it currently includes a bar and restaurant, should this article be added to the categories "Nightclubs in Portland, Oregon" and/or "Restaurants in Portland, Oregon"? --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Added, for now at least. --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• difficult to differentiate between the restaurant/grill Roseland Grill and the restaurant/bar associated with Peter's Room

--Another Believer _(Talk) 00:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

@Finetooth: In your research, have you come across the year in which building construction was completed? 1933 has been mentioned as the year of completion since the articles origin, though I have not come across a reliable source to confirm this. --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. It was 1922. The church tore down the saloon, built the new building, and began using it, all in 1922. I haven't figured out how to add the construction year to the infobox. I don't think we can say that the opening date was 1922 since "opening" in the context of the article implies the opening of the nightclub. What's the best way to handle this? Finetooth (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Diff. I am not sure there is anything to add to the infobox (year of construction), though I am kind of surprised that parameter is not part of the infobox. Category:1922 establishments in Oregon b/c of year the building was constructed. Should Category:1982 establishments in Oregon also be added, for the year the nightclub/concert venue opened? --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Added to Category:1982 establishments in Oregon, for now at least. --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. Looks good to me now. Nice photos too, btw. Finetooth (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

FT, thanks for adding the open-ended date range for Oregon Theater Management. I have yet to confirm if Oregon Theater Management is still the owner. Perhaps not, according to the biz link posted in the above section. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

We can alter the range if you find new info. Finetooth (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thoughts on whether or not the History section needs subsections for organizational/flow purposes? --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I added three subheads to see how that would look. I had to invent a subhead for the Roseland subsection to avoid repeating the article title as a subhead. Not at all sure my invention is the best possible. Have a whack at it if you like. Also, the last subsection, "Reception" is too short to look good. Maybe we can expand it. If not, maybe it could just be tacked onto the third subsection. Another problem with the third subsection, at least on my computer screen, is that the embedded image overlaps the section break. We might use a "clear" template; better would be to expand the text in the third subsection. Your thoughts? Finetooth (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the subsection title to Roseland Theater. Is it a no-no to have a section called the same thing as the article title? Regarding the Reception section, I do think it can be expanded. Work in progress... --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

It is usually best avoided, but this case seems to be an exception. The pattern, first it was this, then this, then this, feels right. BTW, I thought you would like the bit about the orchestra and quartets that I added this morning. Also, I thought of another theme running through the article that can't be made explicit because no RS will have put it quite this way: all the property owners wanted to be at this location because of its association with sin. :-)

Moving the marquee image to the right solved the layout problem, btw. The Reception section looks better too because of the image move. Finetooth (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the music bit is a great addition. Would you consider your work on the church section complete? Glad to hear, re: image move. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, done with the church, I think. What an interesting article this has turned out to be. Finetooth (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks, just trying to gauge which parts are done and which require expansion. Might you be willing to incorporate the above WW links into the Starry Night section, and I can take on the biz source? I am not sure the WW links contain any new information, so it would really just be adding inline citations to support the prose with additional refs. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Finetooth (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

1991 is a somewhat confusing year to write about. New management, Oregon Theater Management vs. Double Tee, etc. Any help with deciphering and coming up with the best wording for the article would be much appreciated. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that in 1991, OTM owned the building and Double Tee managed operations. A few years later (exact date unknown), DT and/or D. Leiken purchased the building. I am not sure of the best way to differentiate DT and Leiken in terms of ownership.--Another Believer _(Talk) 17:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Update: In December 1995, The Oregonian said Leiken would be purchasing and renovating the building within the next few months, which means I am putting 1996 as the year of transition in the infobox. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

@Finetooth: I think I have completed my research for this article, at least for now. More work would be required for a featured article (aka combing through the Oregonian archives for a more thorough list of bands that have performed at the venue), but I think this article definitely meets GA criteria and provides a solid overview and history of the building. I have nominated the article for a copy edit by the Guild of Copy Editors. Would you do me the honor of co-nominating this article for Good status? You conducted research and supplied content just as much as I did. I am happy to submit the review request. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure. That's very kind of you. Finetooth (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Roseland Theater/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 15:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Nominator: Another Believer _(Talk) and User:Finetooth

Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 15:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

1: Well-written

• a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
• b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

WP:LEAD:

Check for WP:LEAD: Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  Done Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  Done Check for Introductory text:  Done Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO):  Done Major Point 1: History "The building was originally … includes a restaurant and bar." (not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body) Major Point 1.1: Apostolic Faith Church "The building was originally a church, constructed by the Apostolic Faith Church in 1922." (summarised well in the lead) Major Point 1.2: Starry Night "In 1982, Larry Hurwitz converted the building to a music venue called Starry Night." (not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body) Major Point 1.3: Roseland Theater "In 1991, ownership changed and the venue was given its current name. During the 1990s, Double Tee acquired control of the hall's operations, then purchased and renovated the building." & "The theater features a standing-only main floor and an upstairs balcony with an adjacent bar. Peter's Room, an intimate showcase venue with a 400-person capacity, includes a restaurant and bar." (summarised well in the lead) Major Point 2: Reception "Roseland has been named "Best Haunted Venue" by one local publication, referring to the murder of a young publicity agent by Hurwitz within the hall. The venue is known for hosting a variety of music acts and for offering quality acoustics." (summarised well in the lead) Check for Relative emphasis:  Done Major Point 1: History "The building was originally … includes a restaurant and bar." (the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 1.1: Apostolic Faith Church "The building was originally a church, constructed by the Apostolic Faith Church in 1922." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 1.2: Starry Night "In 1982, Larry Hurwitz converted the building to a music venue called Starry Night." (the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 1.3: Roseland Theater "In 1991, ownership changed and the venue was given its current name. During the 1990s, Double Tee acquired control of the hall's operations, then purchased and renovated the building." & "The theater features a standing-only main floor and an upstairs balcony with an adjacent bar. Peter's Room, an intimate showcase venue with a 400-person capacity, includes a restaurant and bar." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body) Major Point 2: Reception "Roseland has been named "Best Haunted Venue" by one local publication, referring to the murder of a young publicity agent by Hurwitz within the hall. The venue is known for hosting a variety of music acts and for offering quality acoustics." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body) Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN):  Done Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE):  Done Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE):  Done Check for Proper names and titles:  Done Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None Check for Pronunciation: None Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK):  Done Check for Biographies: NA Check for Organisms: NA Check for Biographies of living persons: NA Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  Done Check for Non-English titles: Check for Usage in first sentence: Check for Separate section usage: Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  Done Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER): None

WP:LAYOUT:

Done Check for WP:LAYOUT:  Done Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  Done Check for Headings and sections:  Done Check for Section templates and summary style:  Done Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS):  Done Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  Done Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER):  Done Check for Works or publications:  Done Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO):  Done Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR):  Done Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER):  Done Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL):  Done Check for Links to sister projects:  Done Check for Navigation templates:  Done Check for Formatting:  Done Check for Images (WP:LAYIM):  Done Check for Links:  Done Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE):  Done

WP:WTW:

Done Check for WP:WTW:  Done Check for Words that may introduce bias:  Done Check for Puffery (WP:PEA):  Done Check for Contentious labels (WP:LABEL):  Done Check for Unsupported attributions (WP:WEASEL):  Done Check for Expressions of doubt (WP:ALLEGED):  Done Check for Editorializing (MOS:OPED):  Done Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY):  Done Check for Expressions that lack precision:  Done Check for Euphemisms (WP:EUPHEMISM):  Done Check for Clichés and idioms (WP:IDIOM):  Done Check for Relative time references (WP:REALTIME):  Done Check for Neologisms (WP:PEA): None Check for Offensive material (WP:F***):  Done Check for WP:MOSFICT:  Done Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world):  Done Check for Primary and secondary information (WP:PASI):  Done Check for Contextual presentation (MOS:PLOT):  Done

WP:EMBED:
None Prose is preferred over list (WP:PROSE): Check for Tables (MOS:TABLES):

2: Verifiable with no original research

• a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
• b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: excellent (Thorough check on Google.)

WP:RS:

Done Check for WP:RS:  Done Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING): (not contentious)  Done Is it contentious?: No Does the ref indeed support the material?: Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):  Done Who is the author?: Does the author have a Wikipedia article?: What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?: What else has the author published?: Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?: Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  Done Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):

WP:MINREF:
Done Check for inline citations WP:MINREF:  Done Check for Direct quotations:  Done Check for Likely to be challenged:  Done Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP): NA

• c. No original research:  Done

WP:NOR:
Done Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  Done Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  Done Check for original images (WP:OI):  Done

3: Broad in its coverage

a. Major aspects:

Done Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources: Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS: Check for Out of scope: Check for The range of material that belongs in the article: Check for All material that is notable is covered: Check for All material that is referenced is covered: Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered: Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge: Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):

b. Focused:
Done Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH): Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):

4: Neutral

WP:NPOV:

Done 4. Fair representation without bias:  Done Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  Done Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  Done Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  Done Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  Done Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  Done Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  Done Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  Done Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  Done Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI): None Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV): None

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images  Done (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license)

Images:

Done 6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  Done Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):  Done Check for copyright status:  Done Check for non-free content (WP:NFC):  Done Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR):  Done 6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  Done Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):  Done Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):  Done Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):  Done

I'm glad to see your work here. I do have some insights based on the above checklist that I think will improve the article:

• I think the lead can be improved in order to provide an accessible overview and to give relative emphasis for the Starry Night.

Besides that, I think the article looks excellent. You've done great work, and I am quite happy to assist you in improving it. All the best, --Seabuckthorn ♥ 12:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time to review this article. I expanded the lead a bit. I do not want to focus on the murder too much, as this article is about the venue itself, but I did expand the Starry Night section. Hopefully you approve, but please let me know your thoughts. Thanks again! --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! --Seabuckthorn ♥ 17:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Promoting the article to GA status. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 17:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much! --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

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.

External links modified

Extended content

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 3 external links on Roseland Theater. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes: Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140108175909/http://oregonmusicnews.com/2014/01/07/thirty-years-animotion-interview-bill-wadhams/ to http://oregonmusicnews.com/2014/01/07/thirty-years-animotion-interview-bill-wadhams/ Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140108051741/http://oregonmusicnews.com/2012/12/21/december-to-remember-metric-at-the-roseland-theatre/ to http://oregonmusicnews.com/2012/12/21/december-to-remember-metric-at-the-roseland-theatre/ Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140106162513/http://www.roselandpdx.com/peters-room-specs/ to http://www.roselandpdx.com/peters-room-specs/ When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found. If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool. If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)