# Talk:Vivian Beaumont Theater

Note:  The IBDB entry mis-spells the name of the theater.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Planning to remove the redirect of Lincoln Center Theatre to this page and create its own page instead.  A lot of the material on this page is actually about the theatre company which has a complex of three theaters so it feels odd to have so much material here.  I'm suggesting that material about the company be moved over into an article about the company Will be a fair bit of work so before I just am bold wanted to make sure there wasn't a big backlash against KNY22 (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@KNY22, that sounds good to me. While there is quite a bit of overlap in the history at some points, I agree that LCT needs its own article. I tried my best to summarize details like the ANTA Washington Square Theatre and the pre-1965 history. However, there are many things still missing, such as LCT's subscription seasons at other theaters like the Lyceum Theatre (Broadway). This article really needs to be mainly about the Broadway venue, with the off-Broadway venues being moved to the LCT page or even to their own articles. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vivian Beaumont Theater/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Gazozlu (talk · contribs) 14:06, 22 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: 
ok
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
ok
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: 
Ok
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: 
Mostly New York Times and Playbill which is ok.
C. It contains no original research: 
No original research.
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
No copyright violations identified.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
Quite broad and covering all relevant aspects sufficiently.
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
Neutral
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 
Stable
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: 
Good
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
Floorplan images or other images that illustrate the Vivian_Beaumont_Theater#Description section,  the Form and facade section in particular.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Some questions:
Other design features section can use a better explanation, but I wikilinked it.
In this article there is alot of listing going on within the prose. In this case there are whole paragraphs just listing performances and their dates. Perhaps it would be good here as well to reduce the size or list them in a more compact way as the prose does not add much information or readability in this case.
Closing Comments This article is generally good. For me it was just a bit uncomfortable in parts of the article while reading it to go through a list of name after name after name of performance over and over again while having to read the whole article. Perhaps something can be done to mitigate this in some way but in retrospect, also considering the other article review where we talked about the same situation, it is not a problem big enough to keep it from Good Article status.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazozlu (talk • contribs) 21:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)