Talk:Scala Cinema (Bangkok)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Wasted Time R (talk · contribs) 00:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
See comments below on issues around quotations
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
See below about too-close paraphrasing
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
See below regarding significant problems with scope
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
The lobby image needs its upright= scaling factor reduced
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Regarding prose, there are some problems around many of the quotations. The Scala, called "...the finest movie theater left in Southeast Asia" was the ... needs a another comma before 'was'. With Jablon observes that, "What's surprising is that it went from so many to [almost] zero," he said. "I can't think ... there is no need for the 'he said' - that can be eliminated (it's common in newspaper and magazine pieces but doesn't fit encyclopedic tone). Similarly with "Stand-alone theaters used to be city landmarks and the only mass entertainment place for people of all ages," he observed. there is no need for the 'he observed', especially since later you say According to the authors, ... (plural not singular).

Regarding too-close paraphrasing, I found one for sure: article text "Its last screening was shown amid rumours that the building will be demolished to make way for new development." versus Bangkok Post text "amid rumours the building will be demolished to make way for a new development". That's too close. Another case concerns: article text the building is late-Modernist in design with interior decorations in the Art Deco style. versus ASA Conservation Award text "It has an architectural style of a theater in late modernist with the decoration in the Art Deco design." That looks like pretty much the same text, with 'design' and 'style' swapped in position - see WP:CLOP for some discussions of why this can be problematic. Please note I'm not saying these too-close usages are intentional ... but it's easy to stumble into them by accident, we've all done it at one time or another. So rework these and review the article to make sure there aren't any more.

The biggest problem with the article has to do with the scope and breadth of it. The article has only 7 paragraphs, of which 2½ are about the theatre itself, 1½ are about the first and last films it showed, and 3 are about other theatres and the decline of standalone grand cinemas.

Regarding those 2½ paragraphs about the cinema itself, they aren't really sufficient for a GA article. If you look at the WP:Good articles/Art and architecture list and search for every article with "Theatre", "Theater", or "Cinema" in its title, you'll see that even though some of them are relatively short, they are all more substantial in their coverage of their subject than this article is. By looking at the content of those articles, you may get some good ideas about research you can do to add material to this one.

Regarding those 3 paragraphs that are not about the theatre, one paragraph could belong to an article about the Apex group itself (as suggested by someone else on the Talk page) and is already summarized at List of cinemas in Thailand#Apex. And the two paragraphs of the "Death of the Thai grand cinema" section are not specific to the Scala at all, but really belong to some other article somewhere, History of Thai grand cinema or something like that.

So in sum, the way this article is now is not really appropriate to be a GA. But if there is a lot more material out there that you can bring in on the Scala Cinema, you can build up this article to where it looks like other GA articles in terms of being more substantial and comprehensive. Or if there isn't that much more on Scala, maybe you can convert this into the history article, or start the history article, or find some place the history belongs, and build that up to a GA level. Either way, it would take a good deal longer than the usual seven-day period of responding to a GA review hold. So I am going to make this GA nomination as failed, but good luck if you do additional work in any of these areas and nominate again. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]