Talk:Chicago Theatre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Chicago Theatre has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on March 5, 2007.
This article is a former Chicago Collaboration of the Week. Every week, a Chicago-related article that is in need of substantial improvement is selected to be the Chicago COTW. Visit CHICOTW to nominate and vote for future COTWs. This week's Chicago COTW is List of Chicago Landmarks update. Please help us improve it to a higher standard of quality. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see a list of open tasks. See past CHICOTWs. Note our good articles.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] DYK

As soon as this article is reference I would like to nominate the Ronald Reagan proposal for WP:DYK. Does anyone feel there is a more suitable fact in the article for this week's nomination. TonyTheTiger 17:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

Hereby I offer you my review of the article according to WP:WIAGA

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

Some more specific comments:

  1. I am really surprised than the article, being a former COTW, still uses a strange self-made hatnote (rather than Template:See also or similar and fails to include Wikilinks to e.g. Norma Talmadge and Jesse Crawford. Y Done
  2. While I see that at least one source claims that the theatre was built in the "French Baroque style", even my rudimentary knowledge of history of architecture tells me it was not. Curbing my craving of expanding on that ad nauseam, I would say the building (for what I can tell from reading the article and browsing the photos in the articles referenced) combines elements of neo-baroque and neoclassicism (please note that the Arc de Triomphe is quite obviously neoclassical than baroque), and as a 1920s building I would say it rather constitutes an example of eclecticism or historicism (the WP article on the latter is not relevant to architecture). I guess not every source should be completely trusted on everything.
    With regard to that, I believe that this article might use some more research and assistance of somebody well-versed in architecture history.
    Resolved.
    to the best of my abilities with 3 Architecture books. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 14:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Several paragraphs and sentences lack citiations, e.g. the latter part of the first one in the "history" section, the statement on the ownership of the Balaban and Katz trademark, the section on the marquee (another claim related to the marquee in the lead section might could also use a reference). Y Done (requested help on one sentence). 15:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. The structure of the article is so-so - many very short 2-4 line paragraphs, most of them being separate sections, overshadowed by a rather massive "History" section, which is not that cohesive. As everything in this article relates to "history" (and are the post-restoration years not "history" or what), I'd rather divide it into separate sections on "origins" or "development", "opening" and e.g. "history from 1920s to 1960s" or something (those section heading suggestions aren't that brilliant, just to give you an idea of what I mean)
    1. Be bold. You understand your vision better than I. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 15:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. While the prose is not required to be brilliant, I am afraid it doesn't come accross as "good" to me. I would need much more time than I have to pinpoint particular language deficiencies (and would loathe to do that given my lack of prowess in English), but I guess a "professional" copyeditor and native-speaker would do it better - there are some here in WP, I recommend you ask them for help. Meanwhile, the narration also leaves quite a bit to be desired - the history section starts out of the blue with Abe and Barney (I would expect it to start with "the theatre" or something), the marque section discusses the recent developments before discussing the marque per se etc.
  6. The "in popular culture" section is a typical laundry list of trivia the editors were (pardonnez les mots) too lazy to include in the article's prose. Actually, none of the bullets comment on an actual popular culture reference (if e.g. Frank had mentioned it in "My Kind of Town", it would constitute one), but some unrelated bunch of facts (is Ronald Reagan's engagement a pop culture reference or an event? what does Al Capone have to do with the theatre ITSELF?).
    1. Al Capone and Ronald Reagan were pop culture icons of their day. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 14:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
    2. Roger Ebert is part of current Chicago pop culture. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 14:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. I know that the GA are not supposed to be exhaustive, but I still feel the article only taps on the most readily available data on the subject (and even the sources quoted provide more information), and I do not get the feeling that this is really all that I should know about this building. I cannot tell you what exactly is missing, as I have no idea what else is there to be said about it, but I think a more thorough research would be appropriate. Y Done within reason to my understanding. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 14:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Overall, I think this is an article that shows good promise of becoming a really good article, but is not one now. It rather looks like an article in development, and I hope that despite it is not a COTW anymore, the editors will return to it and develop it even further. As I mentioned, more research and perhaps more expertise would be advisable, as well as the attention of a good copyeditor and some experienced Wikipedians that would take care of the formal side. I am looking forward to reading the version that will pass GA, and perhaps even FA in the future! PrinceGloria 02:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copy edit

I am doing a thorough copy edit now. This is all I have time to help with here, sorry.

First pass ongoing, done through first graf of Architecture. Take or leave the notes, either way. Sorry I can't devote more time to this. I will try to come back to it but guarantee it will be soon. I will add the LOC template when I finish, I am a roaming member, pretty good at grammar stuff mostly, have even worked as an editor. : ) IvoShandor 10:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Notes from First pass:
  • The article uses an inconsistent spelling of theater (theatre), pick one and stick with it. Y Done 15:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Added clarify tag to this: John Balaban ran the entire Balaban and Katz enterprise from the offices above the theatre.
  • Mentioned Abe and Barney before but John comes out of left field.
  • Some of the wikilinks might not be needed in this article, examples: crowd contol, stage plays, magic, comedy, a few others.
  • Personal preference (or possibly a decision to be made by an editor with greater sophistication on this issue than me). TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 15:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Added fact tags to:
  • The building was constructed in 1921 at a cost of US$4 million dollars by architects Cornelius W. Rapp and George L. Rapp, who also designed the Oriental Theatre and Uptown Theatre in Chicago.[citation needed]
  • The architects and the amount of money should be cited.Y Done 16:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This proved so successful that jazz bands became a mainstay of the Chicago Theatre's programming through the 1920s and into the 1930s.
  • The fact that it was successful should be cited.Y Done 16:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • During the 1970s, business at the the Chicago Theatre slowed under the ownership of Plitt Theatres and it closed on September 19, 1985.
  • The closing date should probably be cited.Y Done 16:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

I have reviewed this article according to the GA criteria. Please fix the following issues and I'll pass the article.

  1. "The building was constructed in 1921 at a cost of US$4 million dollars by architects..." Remove "dollars", it's not necessary.Y Done
  2. "When it opened on October 26, 1921, the 5000 seat theater was called the "Wonder Theatre of the World" Add a hyphen between 5000 and seat.Y Done
  3. Italicize "The Sign on the Door" as other films are on Wikipedia.Y Done "The marquee is featured in numerous movies and TV shows set in Chicago, and its neon font was used in the title of the 2002 film Chicago." Chicago should also be italicized.Y Done
  4. Can you make any other mention about Frank Sinatra's performance? Are there any other details about the reopening? I just think it could use some more details if they are available.Y DoneTonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. "This reopening marked the culmination of a four year historic preservation effort championed by the Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois." Add hyphen between four and year.Y Done
  6. "Currently it seats 3,600." Expand on this or incorporate it into another sentence, as it currently seems out of place.Y Done
  7. I think that the Performers section should be expanded upon. It may be difficult, but right now, the section doesn't seem to cover the details about the performers well enough. I can't think of what else to add, but go through some of the sources again and see what you can come up with. Y Done TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Altogether, this article has improved significantly since its last GA review. Fix the above suggestions within seven days and I'll pass the article. Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions or when you are done and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 06:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA passed

I have passed this article according to the GA criteria. Continue to improve the article by adding any new information, making sure that it is properly sourced. Maybe consider a peer review to see how else the article could be improved or expanded on. The bottom picture should also probably be moved to the right, I think it would look a little better.Y Done If you have the time, please consider reviewing an article or two at GAC to help with the large backlog. For every article that is reviewed, it helps in cutting down the review time from the current few weeks to a month for each article. Keep up the good work! --Nehrams2020 22:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delist

I am sorry I couldn't pilot the article all along (I actually don't have the time to write this bit of text either, but I guess I finally should), but there are a few good reasons to delist this article right away. One is the existence of the "general interest" section - renaming a "trivia" section to "general interest" is not an effective way to circumvent WP:TRIVIA. BTW, the "in popular culture" heading in WP articles denotes a section on cultural references, i.e. references to the subject in other "texts of culture", so in this case it would mean all instances where the Theatre became a theme (and not just "was mentioned") in a book, movie, song, painting or sculpture. I can help you decide on individual instances if provided with them, but the current ones surely aren't. They are more or less notable events or phenomena which the author decided need to go in the article and couldn't find a place for anywhere else (this is how trivia sections come about, don't they?).
I will add more reasons why this article is still not a GA in due course, but you can just as well read my review above carefully, and you will see not everything I mentioned was really taken care off (placing a "tick" or something doesn't always solve the issue, does it?) PrinceGloria 04:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
PS. "The Chicago Theatre is a famous..." - "famous" does not have a clearly defined meaning, so using this world in an encyclopedia, especially in the definition of a subject, is not the best idea. It is pretty relative - to some it is famous, to some not (I, for one, never heard of it before, but perhaps to many Chicagoeans it is the most famous building around). The fact that it is included in the encyclopedia (and on the landmark listings) is enough to assert its notability.
Picking up where I left, here are some more very non-GA features of the article:
  1. Despite what is claimed to be "done" and ticked above, the article still uses the "theater"/"theatre" spelling inconsistently accross the text.
  2. On consideration, I believe the "performers" list doesn't add much to the article and is simply trivial.
  3. Whatever happened to the Balaban & Katz trademark should be in the article devoted to the company, not one of their theatres.
  4. If the marquee was not a part of the original design, it would be much more logical to mention it right upfront, and not kinda-by-the-way when informing of the renovation. Then again, there is little about the marquee in the article anyway for its purported importance.
  5. As I mentioned above, the "history" paragraph begins a bit out of the blue - I believe it would be much better to start with "The Chicago Theatre was built by the Balaban and Katz company as a flagship [if you really really really have to use this word] of their chain of..."
  6. The "restoration" sybsection belongs more to the "history" than "architecture" section.
  7. The source quoted only states that Sinatra did perform in the theatre in the 1950s, it doesn't make any connection to his reopening performance or establish the "notability" of it. I believe stating it like that is OR. If you do believe this absolutely has to be mentioned (though I believe it is entirely trivial), you can perhaps say "...with a performance by Frank Sinatra, who had performed in the theatre in the 1950s".
  8. The entire paragraph on restoration lacks logical flow and seems to be alternating back and forth between different aspects. I wouldn't call it "good prose".
  9. Again, where the Theatre District revitalization plans go back to is not a matter to be discussed in this article.
Overall, I believe this is far too much for a Good Article. Therefore, I am delisting it now. Given the article's GA history, it would be good not to renominate it before checking with all the reviewers whether their concerns have been correctly and completely addressed. PrinceGloria 20:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with some of the suggested deletions, especially #2 and #9. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The fact that PrinceGloria cannot understand why the marquee is famous, when it is used in nearly every montage for TV stories about Chicago, its font was used for the title of a movie that grossed $170 million, and the last one was donated to the Smithsonian, suggests some sort of irrational bias against this article. Speciate 06:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
When did I sy that I believe the marquee is not famous? If there is any irrational bias, I really don't see how it is on my side... PrinceGloria 07:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA/R

There's a Good Article review over this article, in case anyone is interested. Homestarmy 02:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

By unanimous consensus, this article has been relisted at WP:GA. Regards, LaraLoveT/C 05:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
And how exactly was this consensus unanimous? PrinceGloria 09:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
PS. To expand: the article has major problems with structuring and flow, contains off-topic information and moderately irrelevant trivia. I really don't think those are minor issues that can be dismissied because "GA is no FA". Putting this article back on the list we further compromise the quality of GA. Rather than a list of article comlying with set standards, we turn it into a list of articles that are "not bad". This is certainly not the way to go.
Describing the performances that have occurred at a theater can hardly be considered trivia; that's what theaters are for. Speciate 20:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
That is what theatres are for, but encyclopedic articles are not for enumerating the people who performed on stage or events losely connected to the theatre. Not every fact has a place in every article. PrinceGloria 21:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
A listing like this can practically go on forever. And would be similar for hundreds of theatres across the world, there is nothing particularly notable about any individual performance just because it occurs at a certain theatre. The building is of relevance, partially because of its renown as a performance venue but that doesn't mean individual events should be mentioned. If you want to talk about events, talk about the notable ones. Random lists (even if written out in prose) don't help the article and are more exclusionary than they are helpful. For instance, what is the inclusion criteria for this list? Surely hundreds of performers have been excluded, it doesn't even scratch the surface. This section is pointless IMO, and plagued by recentism. Let's look for the notable events that happened there instead of including random trivia. IvoShandor 21:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)