Talk:Liberty Theatre/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Hoary (talk · contribs) 08:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking forward to attempting to digest this draft. -- Hoary (talk) 08:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kicking off with a couple of points that have me a little confused:

Ownership, 1944–1990[edit]

I'm rather confused by the Brandts:

  • "the Brandt family took over the venue, operating it as a movie theater until the 1980s"
  • "The Brandt family acquired the Liberty Theatre [...] in December 1944."
  • "William Brandt said in 1953 that any of his 42nd Street theaters [...]" [One of these being the Liberty, I believe.]
  • [In the early 70s], "The Brandts' theaters had a combined annual gross of about $2 million and operated nearly the entire day. [...] the Brandts' theaters only had three million visitors by 1977, about half of the number in 1963. The Brandts' movie theaters on 42nd Street continued to operate through the mid-1980s [...]"
  • [in 1981/1982?] "The Brandt Organization planned to submit a bid to redevelop some of the theaters they owned on 42nd Street. In June 1982, the Brandts' five theaters on the north side of 42nd Street were added to the redevelopment plan. Despite the Brandts' insistence that the Empire and Liberty theaters also be included in the redevelopment, the two theaters were leased to New York Mart Inc. as part of a separate plan.

I realize that neither "the Brandt family" nor "the Brandts" would be mistaken by a reader for the formal name of any organization, but the sudden, unexplained appearance of (capitalized) "Brandt Organization" is a bit jarring. More jarring is the seeming contradiction between ownership by Brandts (plural) and (it seems) that by William Brandt (singular). Very likely the available sources are confused, but could this be cleared up a little?

Thanks for bringing this up. William Brandt was a member of the Brandt family, who, through the Brandt Organization, operated the five theaters. The members of the Brandt family were (I think) the only people involved in the Brandt Organization, so I've simplified this now. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good. -- Hoary (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Current (2023) operator[edit]

"Forest City Ratner" is merely a redirect to "Forest City Realty Trust", which, though it does mention people named Ratner, doesn't mention "Forest City Ratner". It does however say: "Forest City Realty Trust, Inc. was a real estate investment trust [...]. On December 7, 2018, the company was acquired by Brookfield Asset Management." (Its brand name too seems to be defunct: that article gives "www.forestcity.net" as the website, but this merely redirects to Brookfield's website.)

Yeah, actually Forest City Ratner was the NYC office of Forest City Realty Trust, which had properties in multiple cities. As Forest City Realty Trust is now part of Brookfield, I can update that; however, I think the whole backstory of Forest City is tangential to the topic of the article. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. But thanks to the infobox, "Forest City Ratner" was unfortunately conspicuous as the current operator. However, you've now fixed that, so all's well. -- Hoary (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First run-through[edit]

Of course, when I write "string1" → "string2" in what follows, I mean Where I read "string1", I think that "string2" would be preferable, but I'm not so eager to strain your patience (or mine) by trying to explain why. Feel free to disagree; and if you disagree, just leave the text as it is: there's no need to explain. Also, if you'd like me to explain a few of these, feel free to ask.

Intro[edit]

  • "designed by the same architect" → "designed by the same architects" (plural)
  • "cantilevered above a ground-level orchestra": This is of course an entirely legitimate use of the term orchestra, but it might stump those who only know the word's far commoner meaning. An explanatory link?
    • There is unfortunately no specific link on Wikipedia or Wiktionary, but it is the lowest level of seating in a Broadway theater, and it generally has more seats than the balcony levels. The closest definition to what I mean is definition 2 of https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/orchestra#Etymology. However, like I said, there is no specific link for this particular terminology, so I have clarified it in this article. Epicgenius (talk) 14:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and hosted several hit productions in its early years, which largely consisted of" → "and in its early years hosted several hit productions, which largely consisted of"
Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 11:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Site[edit]

  • "eleven legitimate theaters were built": Wiktionary says that a "legitimate theater" may be a place where the form of entertainment so named may be enjoyed; but Merriam-Webster (freebie version) does not. It's more wordy (and I have a strange dislike of the word "venue"), but "eleven venues for legitimate theater were built", perhaps?
  • "and many of them were showing pornography by the 1970s": Nothing really wrong with this, but readers unfamiliar with 70s' NYC might wonder what the point of saying this is. A smidgen of [Shh!] editorializing might help: "and many of them had sunk to showing pornography by the 1970s". However it's your call.
    • I have done this, but in a slightly different way (using "had been relegated" instead of "had sunk"). Epicgenius (talk) 14:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. ("Relegated" is an excellent choice: much better than what I proposed.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exterior[edit]

  • "There were caryatids on either side of the main entrance, which represented the concepts of comedy and song." → "On either side of the main entrance, there were caryatids representing comedy and song."
  • "Otherwise, the facade does not have any other decoration." Delete one or other of "otherwise" and "other".
Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 11:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interior[edit]

  • "a 15,000 U.S. gallons (57,000 L) water tank": Change to "gallon", singular.
  • "All of the air in the theater could be completely changed within five minutes": Delete one or other of "all of" and "completely".
  • "had begun to flake off" → "began to flake off"
Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 11:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History (intro)[edit]

  • "the epicenter for large-scale theater productions": For me, whereas "the center for" would be fine, "epicenter" seems to demand "of". (Perhaps this is just a peculiarity of my idiolect: if you're happy with "epicenter for", feel free to retain it.)

1900s and 1910s[edit]

  • "In general, the Liberty hosted several hit productions in its early years": This somehow sounds very odd to me. Does it perhaps mean "During most of its early years, the Liberty hosted several hit productions"? (A source is cited, but I have no obvious access to it and therefore can't check.)
    • I've deleted "in general". The Liberty did host several hits in its first few years. Epicgenius (talk) 14:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the operetta Rob Roy" → "the operetta Rob Roy"
    • The sentence reads "The theater's other productions in the early 1910s included the play The Fascinating Widow in 1911, the play Milestones in 1912, and the operetta Rob Roy and the musical Sweethearts in 1913". The conjunction before "the operetta Rob Roy" makes it clear that the operetta was staged in 1913; without it, the article would have to say "the operetta Rob Roy in 1913". Epicgenius (talk) 14:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they signed an agreement with the Biograph Company in 1913, which allowed Biograph to produce" → "in 1913 they signed an agreement with the Biograph Company that allowed Biograph to produce"
  • "Erlanger announced in April 1926 that the Liberty Theatre would be completely renovated after Tip Toes ended": If the cited source mentions when it would end, it would be good to append "in June" or whatever. (Of course, even Erlanger himself might not have known.)
  • From the second sentence of this same paragraph (the one starting "Erlanger announced"), we're told about "revues with Black casts in the late 1920s and early 1930s". Blackbirds of 1928 was one. But thereafter it becomes unclear: were Mr Moneypenny and Subway Express also Black revues?
    • They were not. I've tried to clarify this now. Epicgenius (talk) 14:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although Erlanger had died in March 1930": Delete "had".
As a whole, thank you. The Biograph/agreement one actually wasn't done, but maybe you disagree with me, which of course would be fine. Sorry about "and the operetta": you're entirely right, of course. (And I trust that Tip Toes really was to end in June, a month I chose quite arbitrarily.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now all done. Thank you! -- Hoary (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Movie theater and decline[edit]

  • "producers did not take his offer" → "producers did not take up his offer"
  • "subrun action fare": "Subrun"? The context suggests what a little later might have been called "direct-to-video", or more simply "junk". But that's just guesswork: neither Wiktionary nor Merriam-Webster (freebie version) has heard of the word. Perhaps paraphrase; or, if this has a specific meaning, annotate.
Now "presenting 'subrun action fare', showing second runs of action films that had premiered at other theaters", within which I presume that "showing ... theaters" is a gloss of what precedes it. But I wonder if it will be so interpreted. Maybe put "showing ... theaters" in parentheses? -- Hoary (talk) 11:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Preservation attempts[edit]

  • "razing several buildings in the area to create a park, including the Liberty" → "razing several buildings in the area, including the Liberty, to create a park"
  • "The City at 42nd Street plan was announced in December 1979 as part of a proposal to restore West 42nd Street around Times Square." The title of the plan is a little hard to grasp. It's in the same paragraph as a CUNY exhibition: was it perhaps a plan titled City at 42nd Street and shorthand for "CUNY at 42nd Street"?
    • No, it was a separate plan proposed by the New York City government. CUNY is short for the City University of New York, but they don't have a 42nd Street campus. I've clarified this now. Epicgenius (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "five theaters would have been converted" → "five theaters would be converted"
  • "determined that the theater's superstructure" → "determined that the Liberty's superstructure"
  • "In addition, the facade was also deteriorating": Delete either "in addition" or "also".
  • "The LPC had started to consider protecting theaters as landmarks in 1982, including the Liberty Theatre" → "The LPC had in 1982 started to consider protecting theaters, including the Liberty Theatre, as landmarks"
    • For some reason, this reads strangely to me. Perhaps "The LPC had started to consider protecting theaters, including the Liberty Theatre, as landmarks in 1982"? Epicgenius (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. And yes, for the last one, your version is fine. -- Hoary (talk) 11:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Early redevelopment proposals[edit]

  • "a garment merchandise mart": How would this differ from a plain "garment mart"? (But NB later we encounter "The merchandise mart was ultimately never built".)
  • "the Empire and Liberty theaters would have been renovated" → "the Empire and Liberty theaters would be renovated"
  • "The Brandts leased all their movie theaters on 42nd Street, including the Liberty, to the Cine 42nd Street Corporation in 1986." This is the only mention of this corporation, or anyway the only mention of this name for it. How was/is it related to the 42nd Street Company (both described earlier in the article and mentioned later in it)?
  • "The Liberty Theatre was still part of the mart project by 1987": Change "by" to "in".
  • "By the end of the year, the plans were in danger due to a lack of money." I don't know why this sounds very strange to me, but anyway it does. Perhaps "However, by the end of the year the plans were threatened by a lack of money."
  • "ruled that the condemnation was allowed to occur": (1) Perhaps "ruled that the condemnation could go ahead"? But (2) what's this "condemnation"?
The last two have now been edited; perhaps Epicgenius and I simply disagree on the others. Well, each is only a minor point. -- Hoary (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, I forgot to reply to these, as I've had limited time to fix these issues over the last few days. I fixed the second and fourth points. For the first point, reliable sources most commonly describe the project as a merchandise mart, and it was supposed to have sold garments. For the third point, the Cine 42nd Street Corporation paid the 42nd Street Company (a subsidiary of the Brandts' company) to lease the site. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. -- Hoary (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New 42nd Street control[edit]

  • "featuring Fiona Shaw": This is unnecessarily vague. The NYT source makes it clear that this was a (bravura) performance by Shaw, alone.
  • "Forest City Ratner erected a Hilton hotel above the theater": Eh, what? I clicked on the reference. The NYT article describes work progressing to create a "DoubleTree" hotel on top of the Liberty -- and also on top of much else. (It doesn't mention "Hilton", which first came as a surprise, but maybe I'm unusual in having minimal experience or knowledge of multiply-starred hotels.) The article DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Metropolitan New York City is about something that seems to have been very similar (but of course was a few blocks away). If time and energy suffice, you might add a little more about the hotel: what else it was/is on top of, its name, what its fate has been. (True, this article is about the theater; but it's rare and I think remarkable for an ageing theater to find itself similarly dwarfed from above.)
    • I think the development itself may warrant an article, since it was built above multiple theaters (the Empire Theatre is also part of the project, and the Madame Tussauds New York was partially built within the old Candler Theatre). I can get to this later. Incidentally, the DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Metropolitan was built on a completely empty site; a better comparison may be TSX Broadway, which is being built above an existing theater. Epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the immersive play Speakeasy Dollhouse: Ziegfeld's Midnight Frolic, a story investigating the death of actress Olive Thomas": This somehow sounds odd to me. Maybe "the immersive play Speakeasy Dollhouse: Ziegfeld's Midnight Frolic, whose story investigated the death of actress Olive Thomas" (or instead of "whose story", simply "which").
Good. Hmm, how could I have so misread the article DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Metropolitan New York City? (Probably because I started reading it so sleepily -- not its authors' fault! -- that I misunderstood it as being about the building that tops the area including the Liberty, and thereafter subconsciously distorted everything I read in order that it wouldn't contradict this. Until I realized that of course the street numbers were wrong.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some references[edit]

  • Reference named "Cinema Treasures 1916": {{cite web |date=September 5, 1916 |title=Liberty Theatre in New York, NY |url=http://cinematreasures.org/theaters/2661 |access-date=September 29, 2022 |website=Cinema Treasures |archive-date=December 8, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151208124925/http://cinematreasures.org/theaters/2661 |url-status=live }} This is misdescribed. The page linked to says "Excerpted from 'Lost Broadway Theatres' by Nicholas Van Hoogstraten, 1997 / Contributed by Bryan Krefft". The last two sentences: "After over a decade laying empty and unused, it was restored and converted into a Famous Dave’s BBQ Restaurant which opened at Christmas 2011, but was closed in 2013. A bar operates from the foyer area and by 2015 the auditorium is used for special events." (Sprinkle "sic"s to taste.) Presumably the text is NVH's, clumsily updated by Krefft. And unfortunately, this is worse than misdescribed: There's no indication that NVH has given permission for reproduction from the book (ISBN 1568981163), so we assume by default that this is a copyright violation. Which means that the article shouldn't be linking to it. Of course if somebody has access to the book and can cite that directly (with page number(s), etc), that would be fine.
    • I have removed that reference, as it was completely redundant. Epicgenius (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allen, Kelcey (July 1, 1932). "Amusements: Vaudeville Taking On Entihsiasm Of 1900". Typo? (I haven't actually looked at this or either of the two immediately below.)
  • McDonough, Jimy (December 11, 1985). "New York Entertainment: 42d St. Grindhouses: Alternative Outlet For Dusty Subruns Facing Extinction" "Jimy" looks odd: perhaps a typo for "Jim" or "Jimmy"?
  • Morehouse, Ward, III (November 9, 1977). "A 'Little white Way' for tawdry 42nd St.: 'Little White Way' planned for tawdry 42nd Street" An odd (incomplete) duplication of the title.
    • I will fix these two later (many of the issues you mentioned are actually present across multiple articles, but I need to fix these issues using WP:AWB, which I do not have on this computer). Epicgenius (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good. And there's no rush. -- Hoary (talk) 11:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Klaw and Erlanger: departing yet lingering[edit]

We read:

  • "After Klaw and Erlanger ended their partnership in 1919, Erlanger continued to operate the theater until 1932 [...]"
  • "By 1919, Klaw and Erlanger's Theatrical Syndicate no longer had a monopoly on theatrical shows, and they had dissolved their partnership. A. L. Erlanger continued to produce shows at the Liberty Theatre, while Marcus Klaw developed his own venue on 45th Street, the Klaw Theatre."
  • "Erlanger died in March 1930"
  • "Klaw and Erlanger's firm 234 West 42nd Street Inc. was evicted from the theater in 1931 after failing to pay rent."

I'm confused. Guess: The fourth of these might be "234 West 42nd Street Inc., the firm that Klaw and Erlanger had started, was evicted from the theater in 1931 after failing to pay rent." (NB: only a guess.) But even if "Erlanger continued to operate" is interpreted as "Erlanger's company continued to operate", the years provided above show that, at least for a few months, they somehow operated a theater from which they'd previously been evicted. (Or had they been let back in after paying the arrears?) Hoary (talk) 12:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Their theatrical partnership was called Klaw and Erlanger, which did in fact establish 234 West 42nd Street Inc. I made a mistake in the lead - the partnership only operated the theater until 1931. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see that it's all fixed now. Good. -- Hoary (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

A couple of points about the images.

First, MoS/Accessibility/Alternative text for images says "For images that link to their image description page (which is nearly all images on Wikipedia), the alt text cannot be blank nor should the alt parameter be absent." The images appearing in this article link to their description pages; none has alt text; and no, a caption is no substitute for this. Therefore, add alt text, please.

Secondly, it's clear from the article that the appearance of the theater has changed a lot over time. It might help the reader/viewer if the caption for each of the color photos said that it dates from 2021 (or December/late 2021). -- Hoary (talk) 09:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added alt text to each image. (I should note that, while MOS:ALT is technically an essay, I also ask nominators to add alt text when I review other people's GAs, so that is a reasonable request.) – Epicgenius (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia/Mediawiki aside, Alt text is commonly regarded as a requirement for decent web pages in general. (Indeed, (X)HTML validation requires it, or anyway did up to and including XHTML 1.0 -- not sure about HTML5, my knowledge of which is hazy.) Thank you for adding both alt text and years. -- Hoary (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rating[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    It's excellently written.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    The descriptions of the sources, complete with DOIs, etc, are very helpful. I have no reason to suspect plagiarism, and Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows nothing.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    This is a complex subject: There's the theater as a real estate business, as a place housing spectacles and events, as a work of architecture, as material in 42nd St "(re)development", and more. Each is explained well. Opportunities for tangents aren't taken up: although I tend to enjoy digressions, their avoidance is probably for the better.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Not a contentious subject; but anyway, the article seems neutral.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    This was an easy pass. I thank Epicgenius for their patience with my cavilling. -- Hoary (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liberty_Theatre/GA1&oldid=1134694602"