Talk:Samuel J. Friedman Theatre/GA1

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 04:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

This looks like another article on New York theatres by Epicgenius and so, if my experience to anything to go by, is likely to be close to Good Article status already. I will start my review soon. simongraham (talk) 04:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments
This is a stable and well-written article. 95.6% of authorship is by Epicgenius. It is currently ranked B class and was a DYK nomination on 28 December.


 * The article is of reasonable length with 5,577 words of readable prose, plus a referenced list of notable productions and an infobox.
 * It is written in a summary style, consistent with relevant Manuals of Style.
 * Copyvio shows 15% likelihood of copyright violation with an article in Playbill on the venue. The trouble seems to be the names of performances rather than anything more concerning.
 * Citations seem to be thorough, although some seem a bit excessive. Is this WP:CITEKILL? For example, the statement "The Nederlanders and Lane indicated their intent to restore the theater while developing the Eighth Avenue site as an apartment complex." has three references.
 * I have removed a few of the redundant references where they were both paywalled and had less information than the freely-accessible source. Epicgenius (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Excellent work. There do seem a lot of duplicate references. simongraham (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Some references are actually two (for example 312) which helps remove the clutter in the list of productions. Is that worth replicating across the section?
 * Perhaps, but the IBDB and Playbill references are grouped together because they are similar in type (i.e. they both give production details). Epicgenius (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Is that a general recommendation? simongraham (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this is a general (unofficial) guideline I am following when combining references. I tend to combine refs only if they provide very similar info. Epicgenius (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * All references appear to be from reputable sources.
 * Images have suitable Creative Commons or Public Domain licenses. More than half of them are marked as Epicgenius' own work. Thank you for including them.
 * In the lead there are two periods after Warner Bros.
 * I removed one of them. Epicgenius (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "All of the second-story windows are six-over-six double hung windows, placed within terracotta surrounds." Is the "of" necessary?
 * Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Is Chanin singular or plural? Both are used. For example, "Chanin hired Herbert Krapp" and "The Chanins retained Krapp" are in the same paragraph.
 * It was Irwin Chanin alone who was involved with the actual development, but both he and his brothers were involved in running the theater. Epicgenius (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. I suggest clarifying that when Irwin is introduced and including who the other brothers were when "Chanins" is reintroduced. This could be the sentence that currently reads "The Chanin purchased the lots at 261–265 West 47th Street, in November 1924 for $250,000." simongraham (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Consider rewording "took title to the two theater sites". simongraham (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have done both of these. Also, regarding my previous comment, Irwin ran the Chanin Construction Company with his brother Henry (their brothers Sam and Aaron also had minor roles). However, it is unclear whether the other brothers were involved in actually running the theater, contrary to what I said. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That is very helpful. simongraham (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I cannot see any other obvious grammar and spelling issues.

Another well researched article. Please take a look at my comments above. simongraham (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look. I have addressed all of your comments now. Epicgenius (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is a pleasure. Please take a look at the comments above. simongraham (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have responded to these as well. Epicgenius (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Great work. I will start the assessment now. simongraham (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Assessment
The six good article criteria:
 * 1) It is reasonable well written.
 * the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;
 * it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
 * all inline citations are from reliable sources;
 * it contains no original research;
 * it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;
 * it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage
 * it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
 * it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * 1) It has a neutral point of view.
 * it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
 * images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Pass This article meets the criteria to be a Good Article. simongraham (talk) 02:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)