# Talk:Radio City Music Hall

This is in fact verbatim from the Library of Congress site. Is this public-domain? (A lot of US govt. stuff is.) Even if so, it's rather puffish. Vicki Rosenzweig

Yes, this is public domain, written by the archivists at the Library of Congress.  The copyright notice is careful to disclaim original authorship for all material; however, it is very clear that the "Today in History" features are all original material of the library, and thus public domain.  - RobLa 23:37 Jan 18, 2003 (UTC)

In general, Wiki dislikes these lists of random bits of information. I suggest writing these into the article where possible and deleting this section before it runs long and gets out of hand.  The Attractions section is getting a bit unwieldy too. Markhh (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is, basically, a stub with a laundry list attached. I'm not very familiar with the topic, but I'd expect at least a description of the hall and its history. Even the German Wikipedia article has an overview of its history. If you can read German, I would consider this the minimum requirements for this article. It would be nice if someone with knowledge about this landmark venue could add some wisdom to the article... -- megA (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
EDIT: Never mind, I just discovered the sections I missed were blanked by an IP two months ago. I re-installed them. -- megA (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

When the Radio City Music Hall opened in 1932 it had a state of the art sound system including 40 RCA PB-31 Ribbon Microphones.
RCA Photophone Type PB-31
Robert.Harker (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Radio City Music Hall/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 15:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Starting first read-through. I'm surprised the article has languished for so long without a reviewer. More from me a.s.a.p. Tim riley talk


### Initial comments
There is very little wrong with this article, and I look forward to promoting it to GA. First, just a couple of points. All the citations with headlines in capital letters should be turned into title case (MOS:ALLCAPS). And it may be a BrE-v-AmE thing but "terminated six of the thirty-six Rockettes" sounds a touch homicidal to me. Otherwise I think the article is clearly of GA standard, and I don't see why you shouldn't think about FAC in due course. I shan't put the review on formal hold for the minor points raised above. If you attend to the capitals and consider whether or not to murder six of the Rockettes we can proceed to the ribbon-cutting ceremony. – Tim riley talk 16:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Tim riley, Thanks for the review. I have fixed the capitals, and added a better wording for these unfortunate Rockettes. I do think it may be a dialect difference: in the US we use "terminated" as another word for "fired" (from a job). epicgenius (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
B. MoS compliance: 
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
C. No original research: 
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
B. Focused: 
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
I enjoyed reviewing this excellent article, and have great pleasure in promoting it. If you decide to go on to peer review and FAC, please ping me. Tim riley talk 07:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)