Talk:Palace Theatre (Marion, Ohio)

Good Article
This article could be a WP:GA. Some areas you might want to consider for improvement:
 * Clean up the references section - there are some bare URLs there
 * If there are any footnotes (vs citations) move them to a separate header and change Footnotes and References to just References
 * Remove lengthy peripheral discussions, such as the details about the Singin' Cowboy - the fact of the premier is relevant, but the contents of the musical are not - if it is notable, it will be discussed in its own article - shorten that up.
 * put the general references in their own section
 * The quote from the Marion Star might be a little long

I went ahead and fixed some section header issues, per MOS:HEAD, section headers are sentence case, not title case, and headers should not redundantly include the subject of the article. Generic1139 (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Your changes look good. I fleshed out a ref or two, and replaced one.  There are two additional things in the references that I think need to be addressed:
 * The ref for the Pavilion section.  It doesn't contain the information about inconsistent architectural design and the name not being descriptive of the space.  You need a reference that says that.  Or, perhaps better, shorten that section, or merge it with another section, or delete it - that space isn't part of the historical theatre anyway.
 * The Marion Online reference for the 2015 renovation. That reference is from 2013 when those events were in the future.  You need a current reference about the end of the fund raising and the start of the work.  There is a Marion Star reference, but it is only from March 2015. Generic1139 (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Prior to adding the GA nomination tag, I did some looking for possible copyvios, the section on the organ has an overlap with the Sept 15 post at . It is entirely possible that this post came from the the Wikipedia article, in which case there is no problem.  If both came from the Eberson book, then the last para in the organ section needs to change.  And, in any case, a citation is needed for that para.  I did add a citation for the collection mentioned in the book and archives section.  A citation is needed for the current use section. After that, I think this will be ready for a first GA review. Generic1139 (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your edit suggestions. I also appreciate the clean-up. This is my first full article, and I am eager to learn. I added a cite for the organ discussion, which is not from the book or a repost of the facebook post; rather, it is from the Central Indiana web site. I also made the other suggested changes. A GA nomination is very much appreciated.Atmospheric theatre (talk) 12:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I made a final cleanup pass, and removed a section on the book and author, as it doesn't add to the information on the theater and the book is already cited. During the GA review, someone might ask, or assume, that you are, or are associated with, the author.  If you are, you might consider so stating, as there are additional conflict of interest and original research ramifications.  It would not preclude this article from being a part of wikipedia, but the article would need to be squeaky clean in terms of making sure it isn't just an ad for a book or an author. See WP:COI, and note that "Determining that someone has a COI is a description of a situation. It is not a judgment about that person's state of mind or integrity".  I should have brought this up sooner, and I apologize for not doing so.


 * If you want to proceed with the GA, simply edit the text talk page, and add this at the top:, and that's all you need to do. Generic1139 (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for all of your help. One of the most difficult things in writing this article was to avoid marketing discussions--after all, it is an operating theatre. I am on the board of the theatre, and also the author of the book. I am not making any money from the book, however, as I have donated all royalties to the theatre (a non-profit). I can see how this creates a COI, however, and would have no problem disclosing that in the article. See if what I have added is enough (first book fn)Atmospheric theatre (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oops, I see I had a typo, the GA template goes on this talk page, not the article page. As far as your adding a reference to the author of the book writing the article, that isn't appropriate for the article.  You make that disclosure in two places, per WP:DISCLOSE, on your user page, and on this talk page, there is a template provided.  Further, per WP:FCOI, you might be be viewed as having a financial interest (even if you have donated the proceeds to a non-profit).  Finally, of the 32 current citations, 11 are references to the Hoffman book.  Per WP:SELFCITE, that may be too many.


 * The absolute right thing to do now, since you have already done so informally, is to declare your connections as the book author and board member using the template, then back away and let someone else edit this article from now on.  What needs to happen then is:


 * hold off on GA for now
 * remove or reduce the current use section, especially as it mentioned renting the facility.
 * Remove all or almost all references to the book, replacing them with references to the underlying source of the information. If there is no underlying source, then, because you are the author of the book, such information would be considered as original research, subject to removal.
 * You could, using the guidelines of suggesting changes on the talk page, provide the references to the underlying information, and another editor will add them.
 * Get input from an expert in COI editing to see if this page can be saved.


 * Sorry if this all seems draconian, but, if you've read the article on COI, you can see why the Wikipedia community thinks it is necessary. Continue to keep a good attitude about this, and I think we can rework this to follow the guidlines. Generic1139 (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see much of a problem here at first glance. AT may want to use the connected contributor template, but I haven't seen anything that says he is a paid editor. AT, are you being paid as an adman/writer or as a board member? An occasional free working lunch doesn't count. If not, a regular COI disclosure is all that's needed. There might be some copyright problems, but if AT owns the copyright that's purely technical. A purist might insist that he write an email to OTRS saying he releases the copyright, if any of the material overlaps his previous work. WP:OR, I think, is only a minor concern. Self-cites are allowed, but citing the original source is better. citing a colleagues book or another author's book is good too. AT would be discouraged from editing the article itself, but he can put anything he wants to here, and we can recheck it. I very much appreciate Generics warnings and suggestions - we get so many hidden ads here! But, on 1st reading I don't see any sales job here, and think we can relax a bit. I'll watch this space. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 04:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)