Wikipedia:Peer review/Broadway theatre/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Broadway theatre[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
As a school project, I would like to list this article for peer review.Changdaey (talk) 01:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dana Boomer
  • Why does there need to be two pictures of The Lion King marquees in the lead?
  • The lead needs to be expanded. Per WP:LEAD, three to four paragraphs is appropriate for an article of this size. Remember that the lead should be a summary of the body of the article, without including unique information.
  • There are quite a few paragraphs and tag ends of paragraphs with no references - these should be referenced, especially when they have statistics or potentially controversial information. There is even at least one section (Producers and theatre owners) that is completely unreferenced.
  • References should be checked for reliability. For example, current ref #12 (Midkoff, Neil) appears to be a WP:Self published source, and non-reliable according to WP guidelines. The rest of the references should be checked for similar issues.
  • Competing with motion pictures section - Is there really only one paragraph of information? I would think that with almost 100 years of co-existence, there would be more. Also, this section is completely unreferenced. A third concern is that the language is un-encyclopedic in several spots - opinions like "forgettable", "clearly", etc. should be attributed to the reference from which they were taken, and potentially removed altogether if this is WP:Original research on the part of the editor who added the information.
  • 1950–1970 section - Again, is there really only two paragraphs of material on this subject? Especially if, as the article purports, the music of one of these decades "form[s] the core of the musical theatre repertory"?

Overall, the sourcing is what needs the greatest amount of work. As the prose and structure of an article often change when significant referencing work is done, I have not done an in-depth review of the article's prose, or the existing references. Please let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]