Talk:Riverview Theater

Riverview Theater has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: November 3, 2014. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Riverview Theater appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 June 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that construction of the Riverview Theater (pictured) marked the beginning of a "theater-building orgy" in Minneapolis?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2014/June. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Riverview Theater.

Wikipedia

Only several?[edit]

I don't believe the modifier is called for. It should be "one of several" or "only a few". Gimelgort (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 21:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Riverview Theater/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MusikAnimal (talk · contribs) 22:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this article. I should have some feedback for you very soon. — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citations to reliable sources:

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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Concerns[edit]

Lead

Since the early 2000s ... best movie theater. Not sure if we should use the word "best". Even though it was rated the best many years in a row, maybe we could say "among the best" here in the lead to imply that it in fact did not win every year in a row.
- Done.
Link Twin Cities. Context clues aren't always that telling.
- Done. Eliminated reference to Twin Cities and replaced with "the area" which I believe reads (correctly) as referring to the Minneapolis-St. Paul area to which "Twin Cities" is synonymous.

History

"Neighborhood theaters" is already linked in the lead. Especially with such a brief article I'd say once in enough. This may more fall into FA criteria than GA, though.
- Done. I'm happy to hear all nitpicks as part of the GA process, even if they don't necessarily fall under its purview.
Their arrival ... others were not doing so, during the Great Depression. This sentence is confusing. Did Volks came to Minnesota to buy neighborhood theaters as a means to get through the depression? If that is what is meant here, let's reword to say something like that. We should disregard the fact that others are not buying theaters, as that is irrelevant, I believe.
- Done. The sources don't say why the Volks chose Minnesota but I've updated the sentence and removed the fact that they were acting in contrary to the trends of the industry at the time of their theater-purchasing.
I am nitpick maniac when it comes to verifiability, and I believe you should never have to look for the source, it should be obvious. However, there is such a thing as citation overkill, and I think we may have a touch of in the first three sentences, which are all supported by the same source. Why not reserve the inline citation for the last of the three sentences, which should imply to the reader it supports all three? Again this may be more FA criteria, and I'm really just interested to hear your input.
- I've never really been sure how often to use citations; I think I do tend towards overkill just because I worry that someone might insert a sentence or something that lacks a source and, if it's in a paragraph that relies on one source at its end, no one who didn't do extensive spotchecking would be for the wiser. That said, I've cut the first three sentences down into two and removed the redundancy so I think it reads better now. Thanks.
Let's link proscenium.
- Done.
Last paragraph, Minneapolis–Saint Paul need not be linked.
- Done.

That is about it. Overall the article seems to be well-written, and surely we can get the above concerns taken care of in a reasonable amount of time, so I'm placing the nomination on hold. — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed them all. Please tell me if you've got any more. Thanks for your timely and thorough review of this article! BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 03:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y Looks good! All GA criteria appears to have been met, so I am passing this nomination. Congratulations! — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Riverview Theater. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]