Wikipedia talk:Peer review/The Broadway League/archive1

Hey Haruks,

Overall I noticed the formatting and comprehensiveness of the topics presented were great. I think you have captured the topic as a whole, and can now dig a little deeper and expand on these sections.

Comprehensiveness: As aforementioned, the topics and subsections included in this article are very comprehensive. The subsections appear to be a little thin, but that could be because of a simple lack of available information. Still, you set the stage for people to think about these different topics while editing.

Readability: Definitely readable, but the Broadway on Broadway and internet Broadway database sections seems a little disconnected because they seem to include unrelated statements.

Neutrality: I see you have cited Andrew Gans a few times, which is fine because he obviously is an expert on the subject but you could try and find a different source and include multiple citations where you have cited him specifically.

Formatting: I like how its formatted.

Images: I love the images; you can think outside the box for inclusion of images in this topic because the broadway league includes people who have had their hands on all productions since its inception.

This topic may be tough because you really are just presenting the history of the league and what its produced, so connecting the facts in a seamless way is a challenge. I would just aim to have as much information on the topic as possible included.

You da best,

Andreabee12 (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review by Jessiechapman (talk) 02:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Haruki, I agree with your comment in your request for a review about the article benefiting from expanding on the services and audience development plan sections. Below are my other comments/observations/suggestions, based on the article evaluation form:

I. Structure, format, and appearance: I believe your article would benefit from an expanded lead that overviews and/or pulls highlights from the subjects covered in the article. The article is easy to read and the topics are well labeled. I agree with Andrea that a few of the subheadings seem a little thin, particularly in the concerts section. Perhaps you could lump a few of the concerts together under a sub-section of 'discontinued series'? The only things I know about the Broadway League that I felt were missing were qualifications of and a listing of Broadway Theatres, and maybe under services a discussion of the weekly grosses and how valuable that information is to many New Yorkers. Some sections have plenty of in-text links, but I noticed the government section was a little sparse, are there any links that can be added? In the 'Broadway on Broadway' section there is one dead link with the abbreviation t.s.a. I love your images and your external link to the league's website.

II. Content and sources: You cover a lot of ground in this article and I think it provides a fairly comprehensive overview of the topic; well done. There is one grammar perhaps you may want to adjust, in the 'Unions' section the way local 802, and local one are listed may confuse someone not familiar with the theatre unions, because the entire list is separated by commas. Perhaps you could put local 802 and local one in parenthesis following the description of their respective memberships, so that readers know who they are. I am impressed with the number of sources and the article was well cited, if there is any inaccurate information there, I did not catch it.

Please let me know if you have any questions about my comments. See you soon. Always -Jessie