Talk:Stanley Industrial Alliance Stage/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:Stanley Industrial Alliance Stage/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * I will add another paragraph to the lead and see if I can add more publishers' info to the citations. About your concern that all citations should follow punctuation, do you mean you don't want to see a footnote in the middle of a sentence without a comma before it? If that's the case I can add a few commas where necessary and rearrange some other sentences where a comma wouldn't be appropriate. Just let me know if that is what you mean. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 00:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I meant.--Crzycheetah 00:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. All footnotes now follow punctuation. Moisejp (talk) 02:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And a second lead paragraph has been added. I am still working my way through all the references to add any necessary information. Moisejp (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And a second lead paragraph has been added. I am still working my way through all the references to add any necessary information. Moisejp (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * OK, I have replaced/removed the Findfamilyfun references (one was just a back-up for a statement that already had other sources backing it up, so that one I removed, and the other one I replaced). But I think you'll find the aol member source The Review is a serious-minded website dedicated to theatre reviews. Could you have another look at that one? It is also the only site I have been able to find on the web that lists dates for these productions in 1998-1999. Moisejp (talk) 23:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a personal website run by one person. I am still not comfortable with that website, but I'll ask around about that site and get back to you.--Crzycheetah 00:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a personal website run by one person. I am still not comfortable with that website, but I'll ask around about that site and get back to you.--Crzycheetah 00:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * All right, I have reduced the size of all images to the default thumb size. I have moved the Stanley Theatre (2) image (replaced the logo with it).
 * Now that the pictures are smaller, does it still seem like there are too many to you? If so I could move one of them to the gallery. Compared with other theatre-related GAs such as 5th Avenue Theatre and Chicago Theatre the number of pictures seems to be about the same, though. Or did you mean some of the pictures in the gallery should go? If so, I would be happy to comply with that.
 * I don't understand your concern about the pictures' permission. All of them have proper permission. Stanleytheatrecirca1991.jpg has been released into the public domain, Stanley Theatre Heritage Plaque.jpg is in the Wikipedia Commons, and all of the other ones have their permission archived in the Wikipedia OTRS system and have permission granted under the GNU Free Documentation License. Moisejp (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that the gallery section is unnecessary, since there are no text that describes those pictures. As for the permissions, I see that for some of the images, there are permissions archived in the OTRS system, but they're not confirmed yet by our colleagues with the OTRS account; they're listed here.--Crzycheetah 00:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * All right, so I need to contact one of the permissions-related OTRS people on that list and have the images confirmed? OK, I will do that. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 01:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Moisejp asked me to review the OTRS ticket relating to the permission received for these images. Having done so I'm happy that they are available under the GFDL. The images therefore can, and probably should, be uploaded to Commons. Regards. Adambro (talk) 09:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your concern about the pictures' permission. All of them have proper permission. Stanleytheatrecirca1991.jpg has been released into the public domain, Stanley Theatre Heritage Plaque.jpg is in the Wikipedia Commons, and all of the other ones have their permission archived in the Wikipedia OTRS system and have permission granted under the GNU Free Documentation License. Moisejp (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that the gallery section is unnecessary, since there are no text that describes those pictures. As for the permissions, I see that for some of the images, there are permissions archived in the OTRS system, but they're not confirmed yet by our colleagues with the OTRS account; they're listed here.--Crzycheetah 00:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * All right, so I need to contact one of the permissions-related OTRS people on that list and have the images confirmed? OK, I will do that. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 01:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Moisejp asked me to review the OTRS ticket relating to the permission received for these images. Having done so I'm happy that they are available under the GFDL. The images therefore can, and probably should, be uploaded to Commons. Regards. Adambro (talk) 09:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments
Here are my comments about prose:
 * There are many instances of over citing and parentheses in the middle of a sentence, could you go over the whole article and fix them? Some examples,
 * ...(due to tobacco regulations) but... - get rid of parentheses and add a comma
 * Done. I have removed basically all of the parentheses in the article, except the ones in the first sentence and the ones where the multiple showings of Fantasia is described. I feel parentheses are appropriate in these two cases, and especially now that parentheses aren't overused throughout the article, it doesn't hurt to have a couple of places where they are used. However, if you disagree I am open to discussion. Moisejp (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * opened in either 1930,[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] or 1931,[9][10][11][12] - I think 2 footnotes for each year is fine. Avoid over citing.
 * ...Henry Holdsby Simmons as the architect,[2][6][7] - Same as above
 * ...(the same stone as used for the Canadian Parliament Buildings) - avoid parentheses
 * ...starring Lillian Gish.[1][2][5][6] - over citing
 * Done. There are now no more than two footnotes for any point in the article. Also, you'll noticed I changed the sentence about the opening date, which actually I had been thinking about changing anyway, because when I first wrote the 1930/1930 question part, I had an equal number of sources for each, but gradually I found more (and more reliable) reliable sources for 1930. Moisejp (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Instead of listing 24 blockbusters, why not just list five of them, for example, and write more details about them?
 * Well, the only other information I could give, for some of them, is the dates they were shown at the Stanley. Also for some of them I could mention the type of film technologies they were shown in (Cinemascope, Dolby, THX, etc.) but since the chronology of the film technology development is talked about in the previous section, that would be kind of redundant. When making the list of some movies shown at the Stanley, I was trying to include a few different important blockbusters from different eras (where possible—for the 1930s and 40s I couldn't find very much info about movies shown, so I listed anything I could find—not necessarily blockbusters—but from the 1950s onwards I have more information so I could be more selective). I figured that a lot of people who would be interested in this part of the article would be people who may have grown up in Vancouver and had maybe seen films there, and it might be fun for them to be reminded of some of the various big films that had been shown there in different eras. The Stanley is the kind of theatre that I think a lot of Vancouverites felt was an exciting place to see blockbusters, that people went out of their way to go to experience big movies on a really big screen with a 70mm projector and THX sound. That's why for me this blockbuster part of the article is a key part. However, that is probably not conveyed especially well in the article, and I can understand if someone might take this long list of movies to be meaningless. You suggested I cut down the list to five films. Would you be willing to compromise and find some middle ground somewhere between five and twenty-four? Moisejp (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * ''In 1999 the theatre was awarded a City of Vancouver Heritage Award, [11][47][48] as well as an IES International Illumination Design Award.[47] - it's a one-sentence paragraph, either expand or merge
 * Done. Moisejp (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The External links section should be the last section per WP:GTL.
 * Done. Moisejp (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The last suggestion for the future is to create a new page and list all productions there. Now, this list takes a lot of space. I don't mind much, but it may bug some readers. I am going to put this on hold for seven days.--Crzycheetah 07:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestion. That possibility came up on the discussion page but it seemed to end in no consensus. One editor had had the experience of having their "List of Productions at the _____ Theatre"-type article get deleted, so that was one concern. I am still thinking about doing it at some point, though. One thing, however, is that the list of productions on the Stanley page used to just be an open list, whereas now it is hideable boxes, so if people really don't like seeing the list they can hide the boxes. Moisejp (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Remaining issues
 * Strong suggestion to use cite web template for all footnotes/citations. Publishers info is still missing. As for the AOL website, it has to be noted that it is the web page of Ed Forlan, one of the reviewers of www.reviewvancouver.org.--Crzycheetah 23:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How's the article looking now? I have redone all the references into the template style and have tried to be careful to add all necessary publisher information. Please let me know if I have missed anything or if there are any other outstanding issues that need to be addressed. Thank you very much. Moisejp (talk) 06:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am going to pass this article in a couple of hours. Meanwhile, you could change class="wikitable collapsible" to class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" in those season tables, so that they were "hidden" initially and people who want to see the content could just click on "show"; especially previous seasons' production could be hidden initially. Well, this is a good article and I enjoyed reading it. Thank you for your hard work!--Crzycheetah 22:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Crzycheetah, I will changed the tables to collapsible collapsed. Great idea. Thank you so much for taking the time to review the article. And thank you to everyone who has contributed to it since its inception. Yay! Moisejp (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)