# Talk:Rosendale Theatre

Per a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Assessment, I have reviewed this article to determine if it should be assessed at B class. Below are a few issues that should be resolved prior to reassessment.

The article does a good job covering the history. There should be a dedicated section for details of the the theater's building. Including descriptions of the interior and exterior, and if possible, try and get an image or two of the interior. Details can be pulled from the history sections for this stand-alone section.
Everything is well-sourced, which is good to see for an article on a historical building such as this. As the main topic concerns the theater itself, I would recommend cutting out some of the details about the employees. Although some are interesting and help with the history of the family-run theater, some details are extraneous, as more emphasis should be placed on the theater itself.
Good work on improving the article, this will be a great example for theater articles once it reaches GA status. The article can be upgraded to B class when the above is addressed. You can either make this assessment yourself or let me know and I'll give it another look. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Would a section on the building itself include the equipment, such as the sound system and projector? --Gyrobo (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
A little side note on photos of the interior: it doesn't look like it'll happen. I've tried unsuccessfully to contact members of the RTC for two weeks, and when I showed up at the place yesterday I was turned away. They seem completely uninterested in helping improve this article, even though it would almost certainly be to their benefit to do so. I fully agree with you that photos of the interior, specifically the stage and seats, are essential for this article to be considered complete. Until I find someone there who's actually interested in helping, I won't bother taking this to FAC. Thank you for the time you took to review this article, I'm only sorry I wasn't able to make it as good as possible. --Gyrobo (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Parts of this article read like a press release, or perhaps a "vanity" article about some of the persons involved.  The tone is a bit glowing, in addition to the depth of the details about some people. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The personalities of the people involved with the Theatre shaped its history. I tried to include all the information I could find, and I've tried to present it neutrally. If it didn't come out that way, it's because I got too tied up in the small details and didn't notice the big picture (ironic, because my goal was total comprehensiveness). What parts are embellished or need to be tweaked? --Gyrobo (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rosendale Theatre/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Harrison49 (talk · contribs · count) 21:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
Prose is strong throughout.
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 
The article maintains a good style throughout.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
The article is well referenced with plenty of in-line citations.
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
Sources used are reliable.
C. No original research: 
There does not appear to be any original research.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 
The article covers the major aspects and remains focused on the subject.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
The article maintains a neutral point of view.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
The article does not appear to be subject to any edit warring.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
All images are freely licensed and available on Commons.
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Captions are concise and informative.
Overall: A very interesting read. Well done. Harrison49 (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Pass or Fail: