Talk:Walter Kerr Theatre/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: MaxnaCarta (talk · contribs) 01:43, 12 June 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.	Some minor clean-up required and undertaken by reviewer. Removed mention of fire escapes from the lead intro. Overall this is a very well written article with no spelling mistakes and is grammatically correct in good and readable language.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Some duplicate links in the article. Reviewer removed duplicate links for: Midtown Manhattan, Theater District, Broadway, New York City Facade, Adams Style, Jujamycn, Shubert Brothers. I noticed this when reviewing another article, editor is please asked to consider WP:LINKONCE, and only duplicate links when necessary. Many of the links were in both the lead and then paragraph/s immediately following. I also removed "American Broadcasting Company" from the broadcasting studio section. It had already been listed as "ABC" in the lead and linked, so it was not necessary to repeat the link nor to reintroduce it with the full name and acronym in brackets. Same for CBS and NBC, The three acronym networks were all introduced in the lead without their full names, as is appropriate given the context and links - the links themselves can explain which networks these are specifically and the bracket explanations (as would normally be needed for an abbreviation), clutter the article. I also think to improve the article, the reviewer should consider bundling some citations as quite a few sentences have more than one footnote, cluttering the article. None of these issues warrant failing the article on this criteria, however they are something to consider improving in future, particularly if wanting to take the article further. Other than this, the article is an example of excellent layout and formatting, with neutrality and careful presentation.
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.	Yes, thorough reference list.
	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).	Excellent use of reliable sources. Article appears primarily sourced using books, quality newspapers such as the NY Times and other New York sources, government websites and scholarly literature. Facts are directly sourced.
	2c. it contains no original research.	As above, well sourced article with appropriate referencing, no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Copyrio report excellent. Shows no violations. Good use of summary style and paraphrasing from sources.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Coverage is broad, and I see no reason the article ought to fail this criteria. However, I do think it would benefit from more discussion on the theatre's construction.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	As stated earlier, some minor clean-up required to remove some unnecessary detail such as the fire escapes being mentioned in the lead. Otherwise, this is a very well written article.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Describes the theatre in appropriate tone. Example, when describing the façade which subjectively is beautiful, article describes theatre as "simple in design" and compares it to other work by the designer. Factual and objective.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Stable editing history.
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.	All images are tagged appropriately. No fair use images within article, all appropriately licensed as CC or public domain. Some images contributed by nominator.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Pertinent to the article, all relevant and appropriate with good captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Some minor duplicate link issues as discussed, but most links only repeated once at the most. While removed, editor is welcome to assess whether any ought be replaced if required to improve readability. Great use of images, excellent prose, well sourced and good text-source integrity. Overall a superb piece of work. Congratulations Epicgenius! MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review MaxnaCarta. For the overlinking, my interpretation of WP:LINKONCE/MOS:DL is that duplicate links may occur at "the first occurrence after the lead" if necessary. I'm not opposed to the removals but I think at least some of the links can still be retained for context. I will also see what I can do about combining footnotes further.
  With regards to construction, sadly there is not much documentation relating to the construction of many Broadway theaters. Unlike for office buildings, which tend to take years to construct, theaters were usually constructed in the span of a few months because they are comparatively much smaller. Usually, newspapers reported only on when the land was acquired, when an architect was hired, when construction started, and when the theater was completed. The only reason the Ritz/Walter Kerr received additional attention was that it was constructed especially quickly. Epicgenius (talk) 02:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

No worries at all @Epicgenius. Not all duplicate links removed, but some were in two consecutive sections and not too far apart. Yeah, I understand finding construction on something so old may be difficult! Not a problem, when I sought advice on my first review the mentor said that I should always try to find something to improve. Though, given how good the article it is, it does sometimes feel like nit-picking. I am about to pass this, your articles have been a great introduction to GA reviewing, superbly written. MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:53, 12 June 2022 (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.