Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New Amsterdam Theatre/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 28 February 2023 [1].

New Amsterdam Theatre

[edit]
Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the oldest surviving Broadway theaters, opened in 1903. Occupying a prime site just off New York City's Times Square, the theater was described by one source as being "near perfection" architecturally. The theater includes an office wing with a Beaux-Arts exterior, as well as various interior spaces in the Art Nouveau style, with a plethora of colorful murals and motifs. The theater largely hosted comedies and musicals, most notably the Ziegfeld Follies, until it became a movie house in 1936. The New Amsterdam was abandoned during the early 1980s, but Disney reopened the theater in 1997 as part of the restoration of the surrounding neighborhood. Today, the New Amsterdam is again one of Broadway's gems.

This page was promoted as a Good Article over a year ago, and the page received a GOCE copyedit last year. I think it's up to FA quality now, and I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Vami

[edit]

Reserving a spot. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 06:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The infobox says the theater hosts Aladdin but the lead says it also hosts Mary Poppins and The Lion King. Shouldn't they also be in the infobox?
  • The theater at one point hosted Mary Poppins and The Lion King, but it no longer hosts these musicals. Mary Poppins is no longer on Broadway, and The Lion King has moved to the Minskoff Theatre. I have rephrased the lead now.
Epicgenius (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The New Amsterdam Theatre was designed by architects Herts & Tallant[15][16][17] and developed for Klaw and Erlanger from 1902 to 1903.[15][16] Couldn't [17] just be appended to the end here, or cut if it doesn't support this sentence? There's not really a need to have three citations in the middle of the sentence here; nothing controversial is happening and two out of those three citations recur at the end of the sentence.
  • The first three stories contain a segmental arch with the theater's entrance while the stories above are for the offices. Wording confuses me; the arch is above the entrance, judging from the picture in the infobox.
  • The side walls of the office wing on 42nd Street are also designed in brick because the architects had anticipated that high-rise buildings would be constructed on either side. Recommend "constructed in brick" or a variation thereof since those walls stopped being concepts and started being facts a long time ago.
  • The original entrance was a double door and transom windows made of leaded glass [...] Recommend "with transom windows", with link to Transom (architecture).
  • [...] which runs under the office wing and contains curving Art Nouveau-style floral motifs. Where?
    • The lobby itself contains the Art-Nouveau style floral motifs and is beneath the office wing. It runs along the eastern side of the theater building, extending south from the 42nd Street entrance, but I think this is already explained in the article. Epicgenius (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Above the walls are twelve terracotta panels designed by Roland Hinton Perry, one above each of the marble panels [...] This can be condensed with no loss of quality.
  • The stairs are made of Maryland Cremo marble, veined with green. So this is green-veined white marble?
  • The stairs contain green terracotta balustrades made with faience glazing, containing panels with representations of vines, flowers, and animals. I usually see "representations of" used in the context of, for example, personified virtues, or the earlier mural about progress. The method of representing a vine, flower, and/or animal seems to me rather direct.
  • The women's and men's lounge are both directly below the reception room [...] "lounge" here should be plural.
  • The old smoking room was converted to a bar during the 1990s. Should be "into a bar", no?
  • The auditorium is at the south end of the building and contains an elliptical plan with curved walls, [...] How does a building contain its plan but by literally containing (a copy of) its plan?
  • The original color scheme was described in The New York Times as containing a color scheme of "tender pinks, mauves, lilacs, red and gold". Cut the second "color scheme" here. I'd render this as "The original color scheme was described in The New York Times as consisting of "tender pinks, mauves, lilacs, red and gold"."
  • In addition, Issing designed [...] The previous two times Issing has been mentioned, his whole name was given.
  • In addition, Issing designed 16 dark-green vine and peacock figures for the proscenium. What is a "peacock figure" here? Images of peacocks, or peacock feather patterns?

Up to #History now. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 09:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Who/what were/was the Follies?
  • There are two links to the Great Depression in #History.

Up to #Restoration, but falling asleep in chair. More tomorrow. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 05:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • What is the Nederlander Organization and who is Robert Nederlander?

Reading complete. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 14:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vami_IV, thanks for the additional comments. I've addressed these three issues now. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support, then. :) –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 00:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Unfortunately, I don't think this nomination will attract additional comments before the deadline. I'd like to request this nomination be closed; hopefully, I'll be back here in two weeks. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What a shame. Let's give it another 24-48 hours just in case there is a stalker. This won't come out of your 14 days :) . Gog the Mild (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

[edit]

I'll look at this in a day or two. Hog Farm Talk 17:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks HF, I appreciate it. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be able to get to the general review until tomorrow, but will do an image review tonight.

I don't have any significant concerns with the rest of the images. Hog Farm Talk 01:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I must have overlooked the fact that the image was actually published by the Detroit Publishing Company. I have now changed the "author" and "source" fields of both images accordingly. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pass image review
  • "One of the oldest surviving Broadway venues" - not seeing this in the body
  • " Klaw and Erlanger operated the venue for more than three decades after its opening on October 26, 1903" - can we really say that Klaw and Erlanger ran this for over 30 years, when one bought out the other after 24 years?
  • " eleven venues for Legitimate theatre were built within" - are you sure legitimate should be capitalized here?
  • " Decoration was carried out by more than a dozen painters and sculptors" - double check your pagination here. I'm not seeing this on the cited page of the listed source
  • "and five relief panels by St. John Issing" - not seeing where the source indicates that there were exactly five Issing reliefs - the mentions of five panels later on seem to be a count per wall and probably referring to something else
  • "and 38 electric elevator counterweights" - the source seems to indicate this is the count of elevators themselves, not necessarily counterweights?
  • "The 1,702-seat figure has erroneously been cited as the original seating capacity as well" - not a fan of this footnote statement. The source isn't stating that this is erroneous. If this isn't a particularly common error (to the extent that sources are actually mentioning that this is an erroneous belief), I don't know that this is necessary to include

Ready for this history section. Having to stop here for now - sorry this is taking so long but I've been busier (and more stressed) than I expected this week. Hog Farm Talk 03:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Thank you for your comments so far. I've addressed all of these now. Epicgenius (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After a meeting on the ordinance drew much public opposition, leading Low to send the bill back to the Board of Aldermen" - something has gone wrong here
  • "Additionally, Klaw and Erlanger had started to rent out the theater," - Henderson & Greene p. 100 provides K & E's motivations for renting it out - is it worth adding that
  • "Downstairs, Earl Carroll's Vanities of 1930 was played at the main auditorium,[219][220][221] A revival of The Admirable Crichton" - should the comma after auditorium be a period?
  • "Max A. Cohen of Anco Enterprises for $1.05 million" - can't access either of these sources, but Henderson & Greene p. 10344 has $1.5 million?
    • That is weird. Both the NY Times and the Herald-Tribune say Cohen bought the theater for $1,050,000. Either Henderson & Greene are wrong, or both of these newspapers reported an incorrect price. I've added a footnote explaining that Henderson & Greene gave a different figure from the contemporaneous sources. Epicgenius (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for the second paragraph of the movie theater section, more to come. Hog Farm Talk 18:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • " "New Amsterdam Theatre in New York, NY". Cinema Treasures. October 26, 1903. Archived from the original on October 17, 2021. Retrieved October 17, 2021." - what makes this high-quality RS? Also, the publishing date is not 1903
  • "The Broadway League (September 24, 1903). "Catherine – Broadway Musical – Original". IBDB. Retrieved December 26, 2021." - this webpage wasn't published in 1903?
  • In fact, it looks like all of the IBDB cites have odd dates

I think this is all from me for now. Hog Farm Talk 23:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Thanks for these additional comments. I've now addressed them all. Epicgenius (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bird droppings had appeared all over the floor because the windows had holes" - source attributes the problems to "holes that had been cut into the roof", not windows

That was the only thing further spot-checking found - once this gets fixed I think I'll be ready to support. Hog Farm Talk 20:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I have fixed that. Thanks again @Hog Farm. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "Before it began restoring the New Amsterdam, Disney received commitments for at least two other nearby developments from Madame Tussauds and AMC Theatres." What does this mean? Did they own these developments and commitments for what?
  • "This request was ultimately dropped because the replacement marquee was itself an important part of the theater's history." No change needed, but judging by the photos the later facade seems to me crude and ugly compared with the original one.
  • A first rate article, although the details about the contractors employed in the renovations seem to me excessive. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dudley Miles, thank you again. I've clarified the situation regarding AMC and Madame Tussauds - basically, Disney wouldn't agree to restoring the theater unless two other companies agreed to build their own developments in Times Square. Hence, AMC and Madame Tussauds agreed to develop a theater and a museum, respectively. Regarding the contractors, I included the contractors' details because I thought these details would help the article meet WP:FACR's comprehensiveness criterion. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something to do with sources - there are a couple of books you use that have no location given, but conversely, I think the ProQuest ID is as good an identifier as JSTOR etc. SN54129 14:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the lack of |publication-place= parameters, in previous FACs, reviewers have said that the parameter should either be consistently included or consistently excluded. I generally do not use |publication-place= because publishers usually have a small number of locations (making that parameter redundant), and because I think the |publisher= parameter conveys more information about the book than the |publication-place= parameter does. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    |location=: what we think is most important when it aligns with what makes things easier for the WP:READER. SN54129 15:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your point, but I think the WP:READER would not be inconvenienced by the lack of a location parameter. The publisher, ISBN, and OCLC parameters already provide sufficient information about the source. I do not think it is necessary to add location parameters, unless not doing so would significantly harm the reader's ability to find these sources. That said, I will add the locations if, in your opinion, the lack of location parameters does make things significantly harder for the reader. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, never mind what I said before. I noticed that some of the cited books already have publication-place parameters, so I have added that parameter to the remaining books. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to Support this article's promotion to featured status; Epicgenius is an excellent author. Although their username suggests they don't need no such validation from me  ;) SN54129 16:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • Not something you have to fix, but I'm curious to know why you have page numbers mentioned in the notes text, when that's something that is normally put into the citation itself. For example, you have "National Park Service 1980, p. 4, wrote that the main panel depicted the 1900s"; this is more usually done as "According to the National Park Service, the main panel depicted the 1900s", with the citation giving the source link and page.
    • I cited the National Park Service source directly in the explanatory footnote, rather than as a superscripted footnote within the explanatory footnote, mostly for convenience.
  • You give no publisher or publisher location for FN11. Perhaps cite report would be more suitable than cite book?
  • No publisher for FN 197 or for Henderson (1997).
  • No publisher location for Bloom (2007).
  • At least some of the caption need citations. For example, "The crumbling, vacant..." says more than can be seen from the image itself.
  • Any chance of a volume number and a date more precise than a year for the Everybody's Magazine cite? Same question for Hancock (1903), but should that perhaps be a book citation?
  • You seem to have two different formats for your Broadway League citations; 249 is an example of one with no website and publisher=The Broadway League; FN 357 is an example of one with author=The Broadway League and website=IBDB. There are about 15 of the latter format and 25-30 of the former. However, I don't see any other uses of publisher for your web citations, so it might be more consistent to go with the author format. I also see that you don't use the website parameter for The Broadway League, whereas you do for e.g. Playbill. And I see website for e.g. WNYC and CBS New York, but publisher used for City of New York and the MTA. Is this inline with a logic that I'm not seeing?
    • For the Broadway League, I attempted to change the |author=The Broadway League |website=IBDB format to a more consistent |publisher=The Broadway League format, but it seems like I missed about a third of the citations when I changed them over. I have now changed all of these citations to use the parameter |website=Internet Broadway Database.
    • Sources such as WNYC and CBS New York are italicized because they are news media. The MTA and the NYC government are governmental agencies (and thus should not be italicized). There may be some inconsistencies, though, so I will check the article for these. Epicgenius (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I can't see any more inconsistencies, so struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for formatting; will look at links and reliability next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The PDF for FN 1 just says it hasn't been digitized, so I would remove the link.
  • The archive link for FN 11 isn't working for me, though it might just be very slow. Similarly for FNS 201 and 315.
  • The archive link for FN 96 does not work.
  • The Playbill link for FN 171 does not work and there's no archive link. Similarly for FNs 176, 179, and 180.

Source are all reliable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:58, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All issues struck except for Hancock needing a location. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the source review @Mike Christie. I really appreciate it. As you may have seen, I have fixed almost all of the above issues (I was busy installing a new TV yesterday, so I forgot to respond). I have now added a |publication-place= to Hancock; unfortunately, I could not find a more specific location than the United States. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Hancock appears to have been published in New York; I found another scholarly reference to it that used New York as the location. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- Hi Epicgenius, reading through with a view to promote, I'm unsure about this snippet in the lead: Above the main auditorium was the Roof Garden -- first of all, you don't capitalise it elsewhere in the article so I assume there's no reason to do so here; also why "was" when there's no indication that I can see in the article that it's no longer there? If in fact it doesn't exist now then I'd expect to hear about when/how it was removed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose, thanks for the message. I have now lowercased "roof garden"; it is still intact but is currently unused (and has been abandoned since at least the 1980s). – Epicgenius (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for prompt reply. Can you add/cite something to that effect in the main body? Also for the lead wording, I think "abandoned" or "now-disused" work better than "now-defunct" (the last-mentioned seems more appropriate for an organisation than a physical thing). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose, I have now changed the wording to "now-disused". The roof garden was actually called the roof theater, so I have rephrased it. The abandonment of the roof theater was already cited in the body ("The roof theater remained closed, with no plans to reopen it,[334]"). – Epicgenius (talk) 14:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/New_Amsterdam_Theatre/archive1&oldid=1142184118"