# Talk:St. James Theatre

This review is transcluded from Talk:St. James Theatre/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 21:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I'll take this on, subject to my usual "I'll get to it at some point this week" process. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Some thoughts:

 Done You may want to split the last paragraph of "Site", as it goes from talking about nearby things to talking about the history of the site. It would make for a skinny end paragraph, but I think structurally it makes more sense.
I have done this. Epicgenius (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 Done I noticed that the source about Erlanger hiring Warren & Wetmore has some speculation about him having done so because the major theater-building firms were being used by people he was in dispute with. I'm not sure if that's worth including somewhere - maybe not under Design, but under History where the dispute is mentioned, possibly?
Yeah, I agree. I have moved that info to History and added a little more about the dispute and the respective architects. Epicgenius (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 Done "One account described..." I'm not sure it's necessary to include this. As it's written now it kind of comes out of nowhere and doesn't really do anything to educate the reader, except to let them know that a newspaper was wrong about something once, which IMO isn't that germane to the topic. If you think it's important, I would suggest working it into the earlier sentence about the facade - something like "although an early account reported that the facade was marble, it is actually cast stone," bla bla bla.
You changed the wording to "an early news article" but I still think the above comment about it coming out of nowhere applies. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Oh, OK, I thought I fixed that. I have done this now. Epicgenius (talk) 13:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
The wording now makes it ambiguous as to whether it was actually marble, which is more confusing. It should either be clearly identified as an incorrect description or removed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, it was incorrect, so I have removed that now. It would be more trouble than it's worth to say that it was a mistake, since marble was apparently not mentioned in any other source. Epicgenius (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 Done You may want to clarify that the blank facade being "most appropriate" was in relation to an electric sign being installed there, because as a reader I didn't understand why this was a significant enough remark to highlight in the text until I saw the context in the source.
Done. Epicgenius (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
All you did was remove "blank," which doesn't make it any clearer. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Oops, I thought the stuff about the electric sign was also added. I've done that too. Epicgenius (talk) 13:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
The lead says that the auditorium is notably decorated mostly in murals rather than plaster, but "Auditorium" and its subsections mention plaster prominently and murals much less so. The bit in the lead is further contradicted by ref 22, which specifically says "much of the decorative ornament is plasterwork in relief".
While most of the surfaces are indeed plasterwork, the plasterwork is mostly flat. The murals comprise much of the decorations that are there, and they are placed onto the plaster surfaces of the theater. So the plasterwork ornament is really only a minor part of the decorative scheme. Epicgenius (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
How can plaster reliefs be flat? By definition a relief is sculpted at least a little.
@Premeditated Chaos: It's not that the plaster reliefs are flat, but that reliefs make up a minority of the total decoration. Epicgenius (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Huh, the source is self-contradictory then. On p 13 it says "Ornamentation...has been done with painting rather than plaster decoration." But on p 18, "much of the decorative ornament is plasterwork in relief". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 Done "sloping down toward an orchestra pit in front of the stage. The orchestra pit can fit 40 people." You could simplify that to "sloping down toward a 40-person orchestra pit in front of the stage." for a smoother, less staccato flow.
Done. Epicgenius (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 Done Wheelchair access & bathrooms - it feels like these two sentences could be combined. If not, logically they should go next to each other.
Done. Epicgenius (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 Done The paragraph about the lobby is confusing. It's suddenly in the past tense talking about furniture and other design features that used to be there. In contrast, the entire rest of the Design section before this has been in present tense except where explicitly talking about something that's now changed (ex. the romantic murals which were then covered after renos). Is there no modern description of the lobby? Has it been reno'd out of existence in a way that isn't clear in the text?
The theater was significantly modified in the 1950s, with the lobby being expanded. The original decorations were also removed or changed significantly at that time. Sadly, I have not been able to find a contemporary description of the lobby, as more recent sources refer mainly to the auditorium. Epicgenius (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
No problem, if it isn't available it isn't available. Tense fix looks good.
 Done The bookending created by the double use of the phrase "the ladies' lounge" is a bit awkward. You could combine them into one sentence, something like "The ladies' lounge a rose-and-gold color scheme and Adam style decorations including a marble shelf with a mirror and stylized ceiling vents." (I assume they're stylized, else, why mention them?)
I have done something similar to this. Thanks for your initial comments Premeditated Chaos. Epicgenius (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
The Producers' producers started reserving premium seats directly... - how does this prevent scalping? I'm not familiar with how this would be different than selling the tickets normally.
@Premeditated Chaos, previously, brokers would buy the premium tickets at the face value of $100 and then mark them up by several hundred percent. (Actually, brokers can buy any type of tickets at face value and then resell them for a huge profit, but that's a different matter.) When the producers of The Producers started reserving premium seats directly, there was no chance for resale. This meant that whoever bought a premium ticket had to show up at the performance, or get a refund so The Producers's producers could sell that seat to someone else. Epicgenius (talk) 13:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Sorry - I'm approaching this from the perspective of having zero knowledge of Broadway practices, so I want to make sure I understand (and Google didn't help as it seems to be quite different now). Buyers would contact the theater directly to purchase these seats in advance, and then pick them up day-of? Like a will call? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
It seems that way. However, this is a relatively minor point in the theater's history, so I can just remove this little detail if it's still confusing. Epicgenius (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
I tweaked it a bit to liken it to a will call system - feel free to revert if you don't think it works though. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Okay, that's literally my last text-based comment. For better or for worse, the majority of the History section is pretty dry prose so no style issues or much to critique. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Prose is clear and not overburdened with jargon. Lead is nice and beefy - so often you run into skinny little leads on big articles, so that's a nice change. Layout is good, and no other GA-level concerns.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
All set, we're good to go here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)