Talk:Chicago Theatre

An entry from Chicago Theatre appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 5 March, 2007.

Wikipedia

DYK

As soon as this article is reference I would like to nominate the Ronald Reagan proposal for WP:DYK. Does anyone feel there is a more suitable fact in the article for this week's nomination. TonyTheTiger 17:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

Hereby I offer you my review of the article according to WP:WIAGA

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

{{subst:#if:|

---

{{{overcom}}}|}}

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   {{subst:#if:|{{{1com}}}|}}

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   {{subst:#if:|{{{2com}}}|}}

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   {{subst:#if:|{{{3com}}}|}}

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   {{subst:#if:|{{{4com}}}|}}

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   {{subst:#if:|{{{5com}}}|}}

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   {{subst:#if:|{{{6com}}}|}}

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   {{subst:#if:|{{{7com}}}|}}

Some more specific comments:

1. I am really surprised than the article, being a former COTW, still uses a strange self-made hatnote (rather than Template:See also or similar and fails to include Wikilinks to e.g. Norma Talmadge and Jesse Crawford.
2. While I see that at least one source claims that the theatre was built in the "French Baroque style", even my rudimentary knowledge of history of architecture tells me it was not. Curbing my craving of expanding on that ad nauseam, I would say the building (for what I can tell from reading the article and browsing the photos in the articles referenced) combines elements of neo-baroque and neoclassicism (please note that the Arc de Triomphe is quite obviously neoclassical than baroque), and as a 1920s building I would say it rather constitutes an example of eclecticism or historicism (the WP article on the latter is not relevant to architecture). I guess not every source should be completely trusted on everything.
   With regard to that, I believe that this article might use some more research and assistance of somebody well-versed in architecture history.
3. Several paragraphs and sentences lack citiations, e.g. the latter part of the first one in the "history" section, the statement on the ownership of the Balaban and Katz trademark, the section on the marquee (another claim related to the marquee in the lead section might could also use a reference).
4. The structure of the article is so-so - many very short 2-4 line paragraphs, most of them being separate sections, overshadowed by a rather massive "History" section, which is not that cohesive. As everything in this article relates to "history" (and are the post-restoration years not "history" or what), I'd rather divide it into separate sections on "origins" or "development", "opening" and e.g. "history from 1920s to 1960s" or something (those section heading suggestions aren't that brilliant, just to give you an idea of what I mean)
5. While the prose is not required to be brilliant, I am afraid it doesn't come accross as "good" to me. I would need much more time than I have to pinpoint particular language deficiencies (and would loathe to do that given my lack of prowess in English), but I guess a "professional" copyeditor and native-speaker would do it better - there are some here in WP, I recommend you ask them for help. Meanwhile, the narration also leaves quite a bit to be desired - the history section starts out of the blue with Abe and Barney (I would expect it to start with "the theatre" or something), the marque section discusses the recent developments before discussing the marque per se etc.
6. The "in popular culture" section is a typical laundry list of trivia the editors were (pardonnez les mots) too lazy to include in the article's prose. Actually, none of the bullets comment on an actual popular culture reference (if e.g. Frank had mentioned it in "My Kind of Town", it would constitute one), but some unrelated bunch of facts (is Ronald Reagan's engagement a pop culture reference or an event? what does Al Capone have to do with the theatre ITSELF?).
7. I know that the GA are not supposed to be exhaustive, but I still feel the article only taps on the most readily available data on the subject (and even the sources quoted provide more information), and I do not get the feeling that this is really all that I should know about this building. I cannot tell you what exactly is missing, as I have no idea what else is there to be said about it, but I think a more thorough research would be appropriate.

Overall, I think this is an article that shows good promise of becoming a really good article, but is not one now. It rather looks like an article in development, and I hope that despite it is not a COTW anymore, the editors will return to it and develop it even further. As I mentioned, more research and perhaps more expertise would be advisable, as well as the attention of a good copyeditor and some experienced Wikipedians that would take care of the formal side. I am looking forward to reading the version that will pass GA, and perhaps even FA in the future! PrinceGloria 02:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)