Talk:Tomorrow Theater/Archive 1

Sources

--Another Believer _(Talk) 21:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon SHPO, has link to City of Portland inventory form. Valfontis (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Valfontis: Thank you. I added that URL ~~to the EL section, since it does not contain much information on its own but is obviously related~~ as an inline citation behind "two-story" since this is the only ref that describes the building as such. The inventory document, however, will need to be incorporated into the prose since it contains a lot of relevant information. When I click on the link, though, a document downloads to my computer. I wish the document were visible online, but since it is not, I will add reference info but without an active URL. Unless there is a better option? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I've added info from the source you provided. Thanks again for the great find! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 19:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to take on this review and will post my initial comments in the next couple of days. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First reading

In general, the article seems well-written and laid out. A few points struck me:

Tell me, how should the word "theatre" or "theater" be spelt in American English?

I knew this was going to come up (and rightly so). It is confusing. See this link. In the US, at least in my experience, "theatre" generally refers to the art form, while a "theater" is a building, especially when referring to a movie cinema. However, you still see many buildings spelled with "theatre" if they host theatre (the art form), as opposed to movie theaters. It is very confusing and inconsistent. For this article, I used "Theatre" as part of the name of the building, but said "theater" when speaking about the building generally. This seems to follow what sources do as well. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In general the article use "theater" but in a number of places uses "theatre". You need to be consistent, at least in the prose you write, because I can see the sources vary.

I only use "theatre" when using the full name ("Oregon Theatre"). I use "theater" throughout the rest of the article consistently. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to make an issue of this and your approach seems reasonable. In the two images, the name on the theatre is spelled "Oregon Theater" and yet the company that owned it at one time was the "Oregon Theatre Co". Maybe American spelling of the word has evolved over the last century. In fact I have just read the article you linked above and see this is the case. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"... orientation to the street." - What does this mean?

Meaning the front entrance is directly accessible to pedestrians walking down the street. This was the same verbiage used in the source. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should state the name of the theatre at the beginning of the main text (ie. at the start of "Description and history" section).

Done. ---Another Believer _(Talk)

"... installed corrugated aluminum on the bottom of the marquee in 1975" - what is a marquee in this context?

I linked the word to Marquee (sign) for clarification. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence in the second paragraph of the "Reception" section is too long and needs splitting.

Done. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for the moment. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I hope I've addressed your concerns thus far. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, take your time completing the review, but have your concerns been address so far? Just wanting to make sure there isn't something I should be working on right now. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will have another read through tomorrow. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria

The article is well written and complies with MOS guidelines on prose and grammar, structure and layout.
The article uses several reliable third-party sources, and makes frequent citations to them. I do not believe it contains original research.
The article covers the main aspects of the subject and remains focussed.
The article is neutral.
The article was created by the nominator in late December 2014 and is stable.
The images were created by the nominator are relevant, have suitable captions and are properly licensed.

Final assessment - I believe this article reaches the GA criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwmhiraeth: Thank you for your time and assistance. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oregon Theatre. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041211162145/http://www.waverlyucc.org/history_index.htm to http://www.waverlyucc.org/history_index.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 23:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]