# Talk:Apollo Theater

The Apollo has volumes of books written on it, I can't beleive this is all Wikipedia has. I guess blacks from Harlem, whom endear it most, aren't big on Wikipedia demographically
69.142.140.177 18:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to add whatever you want! :) -Dan 04:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I figure there should be a picture of the new LED marquee that doesn't have it displaying some cracker-white English band's name. :P If anyone else thinks the same and can find one in the public domain or figure out the other copyright issues before I do, go ahead and put one up! :) -Dan 04:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The Gorillaz aren't really "cracker-white."  They are cartoon characters, who are grey, yellow, brown, and green.  And the real-life artists behind them are black, white, and Asian.  You try walking up to Remi Kabaka or Del tha Funkee Homosapien and calling them crackers sometime.  X-D  But seriously, it'd be cool of you could get a pic that's a better fit.  It'd be even better if you could get some shots of the other renovations while you are at it, the front and the screens and so on.  This article could use some before-and-after photos.  Rob T Firefly 05:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not really an expert on wikipedia or the Apollo but I think the "tree of hope" should be mentioned somewhere - http://www.bigapplejazz.com/tree_of_hope.htm

Agree about the tree of hope and the need for a more recent photo.futurebird 14:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)and to cool for school

I've added the tags since there is a lot of information that has no citation -- the entire first paragraph of the History section, for instance. Much of this is name-and-date information that I'm sure is citable. --207.237.223.118 (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed the tag. There are several events, but the only problem I see is that they aren't chronological. Is there something I missed? --Mtd2006 (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence "Akiko Wada became the first Asian to perform at the venue in September 2008" being that earlier in the same paragraph it mentions Yoko Ono had played there in 1972.Whotookthatguy (talk) 01:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Good!--Applegigs (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

are you people eighty years old?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.11.28.28 (talk) 11:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC) 

   I'm about to fix the accompanying article, in the same way i described at Apollo Theatre#Hatnote. I suggest you respond briefly there, at least including a link, even if you feel your main argument on the issue (which applies to both pages) needs to be made on this talk page rather than on that one.--Jerzy•t 02:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Apollo Theater. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100917074724/http://apollotheater.org/press/apollopr_062209.htm to http://www.apollotheater.org/press/apollopr_062209.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I think we need to add the Template:Infobox venue as the lead infobox here, trancluding the landmark infobox within it, as first and foremost this building is an active performance venue, even if it is also a well-known landmark. In fact, I think that's the guideline, that a landmark Ed building's purpose comes first, and it's landmark status (which flows from its purpose) comes second. oknazevad (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Plummer: I noticed that you made a bunch of edits to this article's history section. Although I think your edits so far are generally good, I should say that, as an FYI (and for any page watchers who are interested), I've been rewriting this article in one of my sandboxes. I plan to be finished with that expansion in a week or so, but I'm just posting here so no one gets blindsided when I add the info from my sandbox to this page. Epicgenius (talk) 15:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate the heads-up, Epicgenius. I am most interested in the theater's generally ignored burlesque era, but look forward to your update. Plummer (talk) 16:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
I have now updated the article. Please feel free to make any (policy- or guideline-compliant) changes you see fit. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

One point that may need revising in the article is that Jules Hurtig - of Hurtig & Seamon - died in March 1928, of a heart attack while on board ship.  https://www.nytimes.com/1928/03/10/archives/jules-hurtig-dies-on-a-sea-voyage-theatre-owner-and-producer.html  Some of the text in the article seems to imply that he was living after that date - I don't know if the partnership's name continued in use, but as an individual he was deceased.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Apollo Theater/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Reconrabbit (talk · contribs) 23:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Hello, as someone familiar with (but by no means a historian of) the Apollo Theater, I intend to take on this review. Comments will come procedurally as I work through it. Reconrabbit 23:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
Facade: The separation between the vertical sign and the marquee is a little awkward, mainly because they were installed/renovated at the same time. (Fixed)
Cohen and Schiffman operation: "Nonetheless" is a little confusing.
1990s: Kind of a sudden shift from the early 90s paragraph to 'mostly empty' in 1998; contrast or move context from later to earlier in the paragraph?
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
Music: There are a lot of names in the first two paragraphs that might be a bit easier to read if they were put into a list(s).
On the other hand, putting names into a list might be difficult due to the disparate time periods and genres of the performers and would be a significant break from the format of the rest of the article. I'll leave it to your discretion.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 
Based on this revision: None of the sources used could be construed as unreliable for the purposes they are used for as far as I can tell. Also, every statement that could demand a citation has one. Incredible work. I haven't been able to analyse the text of every citation, but spotted a couple reference errors that can be fixed easily: [86] may have duplicated fields, [217] link can be changed since it's a redirect, and [437] might have the wrong publishing details.
Specific references I've verified: [5], [65], [122], [231], [257], [276], [290], [323], [312], [360], [357], [446], [448], [528]. Unfortunately I don't have access to most of the relevant articles through my college (CUNY)'s ProQuest subscription.
C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
Auditorium: There is a lot of minutiae regarding the interior design here, though I don't know if it could be done more concisely or without requiring knowledge of the architectural terms without being vague. (Actioned on)
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
I don't know if File:HSApolloMinksy.jpg has the right copyright. Most likely public domain rather than CC BY-SA? Still unsure about this one - depends on publication date. Yann resolved this by moving it to Commons per this discussion.
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
Gorillaz photo caption could be more specific. It would be nice to have contemporary photos from earlier decades but I imagine copyright is an issue there.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Thanks for taking a look @Reconrabbit. I'll take a look at these later. – Epicgenius (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
I'll get to some of these tonight. A quick comment regarding the auditorium section: although it does have some detailed descriptions, this is in line with the descriptions of other landmarked theaters in NYC. However, I can try to slim it down a bit, seeing as how the Apollo was landmarked not for its architectural importance (as many Broadway theaters were) but for its historical importance. Epicgenius (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
I've finished checking the prose (made some very minor corrections to punctuation along the way). Will get to checking sources next. The way you've written and sourced this makes it seem almost impossible for plagiarism to be a factor so I will check that off. Regarding the theater description, the only thing I would cut down is the second-to-last paragraph describing every motif in the proscenium. Reconrabbit 17:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks again, I appreciate it. I will get to these by Thursday. I've fixed the following issues so far:
Facade: I combined the info about the signs.
Cohen and Schiffman operation: I removed "nonetheless".
Auditorium: I combined the third and fourth paragraphs and reduced some of the architectural detail. Epicgenius (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
@Reconrabbit, I think I have addressed your last remaining point (converting the music section into a list). I have converted the 1930s-1960s paragraphs into a list format. However, there are relatively few names in the final paragraph, which covers the 1970s to 2020s, so I have left that alone for now. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
@Epicgenius, great! I've checked everything off. List is very readable and makes it easier to find particular items than the prose. I agree with your judgment on the later decades. Review has been passed, thank you for your great work here. Reconrabbit 17:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)