# Talk:Studio 54

In the long term, I'm planning to improve this article to GA status. However, I noticed a few things about the arrangement of the article's sections:

Most of the page is about history and is in chronological order, but only one section of the article (the Roundabout Theatre section) has a list of notable productions. However, there were several other notable productions at Studio 54 back when it was the Gallo Theatre/New Yorker Theatre. Should the "notable productions" section get its own level-2 header, such as in Stephen Sondheim Theatre#Notable productions and American Airlines Theatre#Notable productions? I am planning to flesh out the Roundabout section with prose.
Meanwhile, the focus of this article needs to be clarified. Currently, the article is largely about the theater itself and the former nightclub, which is fine. But I also recently removed an unsourced section about "other tenants", which is only related to the office building within which the theater/nightclub is housed. Should we be talking about the office building as well?
Should the "Upstairs at Studio 54" subsection be a subsection of "Design" instead of "Roundabout Theatre"?
– Epicgenius (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I guess the long term was not as long as I thought, as I've already implemented all of the above changes. The article's focus is now on the nightclub/theater and, to another extent, the physical space. There are a few referencing issues that probably still need to be addressed, particularly the use of sources like mentalfloss.com, but overall I think the page is broad enough in coverage.Some people may be wondering about the massive wikitext size (nearly 190 kb at last count). However, the article has about 45 kilobytes of prose size right now; per WP:TOOBIG, the page's size is all right, and it should be manageable as long as there aren't any significant additions of trivia. The article has nearly 450 references. which inflates the wikitext size greatly. The opera house, television studio, nightclub, and theater occupy the same physical space and are largely related to each other, so I have rewritten the article to cover all of these aspects. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Studio 54/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Gazozlu (talk · contribs) 14:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
Well written.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

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: 
Many good reliable sources.
B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 

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): 
Although there is a lot of detail that may or may not be removed, the detail is not inappropriate however it renders the article is quite long.
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: 
Stable except for improvements by nominator.
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: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Very comprehensive article over all, maybe some points to improve such as:
Use as a studio: The fight that is referred to, better to specify more that it was a professional boxing fight or something.
Considering how much is written about the history, it might be good to bring the section titled "Theater spaces" to the top before "early history" and the other history sections.
Comment: The above comments are not the reason that it does not pass yet, they are just suggestions. The only reason why it does not pass yet is because the lead does not adequately summarise the entirety of the article. For example it leaves out legacy and description of the spaces. It mainly talks about the history of the management and establishments that have been in the building, that part could be summarised more.
Thanks for the review. I've started rewording the lead, and I clarified what the fight was. I'll work on rewording the article soon so the "Theater spaces" section can be moved to the top of the article. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
The rewording of the lead section to more clearly portray the cultural importance of the theatre and its "legacy" adequately complete the introduction in my view. Also the other two fixes are good. Gazozlu (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

"Another early show produced at Studio 52 was The Fred Waring Show, which was taped there in 1950."
This is not possible. Video tape was not in production use until the mid 50s. 2600:1700:CA10:18A0:FC54:C529:E060:6C42 (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I've fixed this sentence now. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)