Talk:Merle Reskin Theatre/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''


 * Starting GAR.Pyrotec (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Initial review
The article is a good read and appears to have a good chance of making GA. I have two initial comments before I do the in-depth GAR: Pyrotec (talk) 13:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The Building section says that "seating capacity was 1,400 people until 1988, when renovations to reinstate the orchestra pit and to create seating for handicapped persons reduced the seat count to 1,325"; whereas in the History section, "The Tribune article also pointed out that this new theatre would be an ornate "movie palace," able to seat about 1,200 people and costing in excess of half a million dollars to build". That to me suggests inconsistency or something is missing. Did the theatre originally have a seating capacity of less than 1,400, which was increased to 1,400 when the orchestra pit was taken out of use, and then reduced in 1988 (as per article)? I would also expect a comment about the orchestra pit being taken out of use.
 * I added July 1909 to clarify that the 1200 mention was before the building was completed in December 1910.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The History section appears to be OK, but the following section, "Theatre school", appears to be very short and to appear out of nowhere (yes I know that it is in the WP:Lead). I'm offering as only one of many suggestions, that the History section be sub-divided into a "Blackstone Theatre Company" subsection - most of the section - then consider the post-BTC use separately, e.g. "Leasing", "Ownership by Shubert Brother" and "transfer to DePaul University" subsections. That could provide a smoother transition between the two sections.
 * Good suggestion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

GAR
Quite a reasonable article, however there are a few points that need to be cleared up before GA:
 * 1) The Building section says that "seating capacity was 1,400 people until 1988, when renovations to reinstate the orchestra pit and to create seating for handicapped persons reduced the seat count to 1,325"; whereas in the History section, "The Tribune article also pointed out that this new theatre would be an ornate "movie palace," able to seat about 1,200 people and costing in excess of half a million dollars to build". That to me suggests inconsistency or something is missing. Did the theatre originally have a seating capacity of less than 1,400, which was increased to 1,400 when the orchestra pit was taken out of use, and then reduced in 1988 (as per article)? I would also expect a mention that the orchestra pit was taken out of use, and a date.
 * I added "July 1909" for the 1200 mention. Will look up orchestra pit.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This was just a function of building plans changing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The article lead describes the theatre as as the "home of The Theatre School", which is good as far as it goes. I would have expected some mention, or amplification, of that in the Theatre section - even if its only a direct quote from the Goodman School of Drama, i.e. "The Theatre School's main performance space is the Merle Reskin Theatre".
 * I added that quote.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The "Season" subsection gives the 2006-2007 Theatre School Showcase, but this is unreferenced. Its now old information, but its written as if it is current information - a minor copyedit is needed. These is several years old, why not add the 2007-2008 Theatre School Showcase, even the current one?
 * I scrapped the section. The traffic is too low here to expect upkeep.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm putting the article GAR On Hold so that these can be addressed.Pyrotec (talk) 10:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Congratulations on the article, I'm awarding GA. Pyrotec (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)