Template:Did you know nominations/Davis Theater
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Davis Theater
[edit]
... that in 1979, film critic Gene Siskel supported the Davis Theater (pictured) to show first runs?
- ALT1:... that the Davis Theater (pictured) is one of the few operating neighborhood movie theaters in Chicago?
ALT2:... that in 1979, film critic Gene Siskel supported a plan (that was ultimately unsuccessful) to show first runs at the Davis Theater (pictured)?- Reviewed: Ridiculous Fishing
- Comment: Article created in my userspace on June 29; moved to mainspace June 30th.
Created by I Jethrobot (talk). Self nominated at 21:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC).
The article is long enough, there are no obvious copyright violations, and the article was created on 29 June. I like the Gene Siskel hook better than the first one. Great article.--Taiping Tulip (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Then we'll make it that one. I actually like it a bit better, too. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 02:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
There are discrepancies between the source used for the Siskel hook and both the hook and article. The source says "The revival plan, despite backing by [...] Siskel, was not profitable": this does not specify financial support/backing; since Siskel was an influential critic, he could conceivably have used his bully pulpit as film reviewer for the Tribune. There are other problems: the article says the plan included the renovation into a three-screen facility; the source says that the conversion to triplex occurred in 1986, long after the revival plan had failed and the theater had resumed being a second-run house. The current ALT1 hook is supported, but only if you say "neighborhood movie theaters"; the source specifies "movie", and there are other types of neighborhood theaters in the city. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what kind of backing could have occurred from Siskel's column to help the theater show first runs, but I understand the concern regarding original research. I can't find sources explaining this further. This hook can be changed to simply "support". Also, there was a seven-year gap between the 1979 failure and the triplex addition in 1986. It's not explained where the funding came for this addition, but it's possible there was a change of ownership or some donation. In any case, it's not necessarily problematic. The change to the second hook is also noted, and has been changed. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 17:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm fine with the Siskel hook changing to just say "support", though the article needs to follow suit, and the hook itself is oddly worded: "supported ... to show first runs" doesn't make logical sense. Maybe "supported a plan", though that doesn't make it clear that the theater actually made the transition for a few months, though it was ultimately not a success and the theater reverted back to second-run films. Rather than change the hook further, could you propose a new ALT2 with revised Siskel wording? It's hard to follow the sequence of hook improvements unless a new ALT is given for each. Thanks. (No need to ping my talk page again; I watchlist all DYK templates that I comment on.) BlueMoonset (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Article has been changed accordingly. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 20:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm fine with the Siskel hook changing to just say "support", though the article needs to follow suit, and the hook itself is oddly worded: "supported ... to show first runs" doesn't make logical sense. Maybe "supported a plan", though that doesn't make it clear that the theater actually made the transition for a few months, though it was ultimately not a success and the theater reverted back to second-run films. Rather than change the hook further, could you propose a new ALT2 with revised Siskel wording? It's hard to follow the sequence of hook improvements unless a new ALT is given for each. Thanks. (No need to ping my talk page again; I watchlist all DYK templates that I comment on.) BlueMoonset (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what kind of backing could have occurred from Siskel's column to help the theater show first runs, but I understand the concern regarding original research. I can't find sources explaining this further. This hook can be changed to simply "support". Also, there was a seven-year gap between the 1979 failure and the triplex addition in 1986. It's not explained where the funding came for this addition, but it's possible there was a change of ownership or some donation. In any case, it's not necessarily problematic. The change to the second hook is also noted, and has been changed. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 17:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Apologies, I'm not reading well today. The Siskel backing seems to have been for making the Davis a revival house—presumably showing old, classic movies rather than first runs. I don't know why I didn't notice the discrepancy and point it out sooner. So both Siskel hooks (and the article itself) are inaccurate, based on what's in the Center Square source. Also, parenthetical comments are not appropriate for a hook: it needs to say things directly. Here's a proposed new ALT hook:
- ALT3: ... that in 1979, film critic Gene Siskel backed a plan that changed Chicago's Davis Theater (pictured) to feature movie revivals, but it reverted back to showing second-run movies soon afterward?
- I'm striking both the original and ALT2 hooks due to the abovementioned issues. (It makes sense that Siskel, a fan of classic movies, would support a revival house.) I've revised the article to match the source. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- My apologies as well, as I completely misread that line, too. Thanks for the catch and the new hook. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 21:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Apologies, I'm not reading well today. The Siskel backing seems to have been for making the Davis a revival house—presumably showing old, classic movies rather than first runs. I don't know why I didn't notice the discrepancy and point it out sooner. So both Siskel hooks (and the article itself) are inaccurate, based on what's in the Center Square source. Also, parenthetical comments are not appropriate for a hook: it needs to say things directly. Here's a proposed new ALT hook:
New reviewer needed to check ALT3 hook and article revisions (and also confirm the ALT1 hook); since I created ALT3 I can't also review it. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- Article is originally worded and interesting; image license looks good. Both ALT1 and ALT3 check out OK. Both are interesting. I would find ALT1 more interesting if it included some information about the antiquity of the theater, such as:
- ALT1A ... that the Davis Theater (pictured), which was founded in the silent-film era, is one of the few operating neighborhood movie theaters in Chicago? --Orlady (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)