Jump to content

Talk:Paradise Theater (Bronx)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Needs photo and an infobox

[edit]

Perhaps the same kind of infobox should be added with a photo using the same type as the Whisky a Go Go. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 01:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Whisky a Go Go uses a {{Infobox Venue}}. For now I have placed a {{Infobox Theatre}} into this article (it could be switched to Venue). 69.119.24.98 (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This theater is no longer in use by World Changers Church New York since September 2020

[edit]

This theater is no longer being leased by World Changers Church New York since October 2020 100.37.197.194 (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 00:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
The Paradise Theater
The Paradise Theater
5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 688 past nominations.

Epicgenius (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]


Hi, I will be reviewing this! The table, as usual:

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Expanded by ~93k bytes, lordy that is a lot. Adequate length, at over 100,000 bytes (which is very impressive, good job!) Sourcing checks out. I don't see how POV could be achieved with an uncontroversial tidbit about a theatre, but looks good in that aspect. My Earwig isn't working, but knowing EG I'm going to AGF that there isn't plagarism, as their articles are typically high-quality. All 6 hooks are cited, and all are of interest. I personally like ALT4 more, it seems more "I want to read more!"-y than the others. Image is good, clear, and liscensing checks out as "own work". 2 noms done, since EG has over 500 nominations and DYK is currently in backlog mode. Great job, this is an easy pass! EF5 21:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]
Passed. Bobby Cohn (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Paradise Theater (Bronx)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 16:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Bobby Cohn (talk · contribs) 15:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Hi @Epicgenius, I'm going to tackle this review. A quick review shows this is a good candidate and clearly above the bar of a quickfail. I'll conduct a further review of it and I'll let you know when my first pass of it is complete. Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking up the review, Bobby Cohn. I'll address your concerns over the next few days, but I've left some responses below. Epicgenius (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Epicgenius, I've completed my first pass; happy to hand it off to you and we can work concurrently while I work my way through the quotes and identify the references for the spot check. Bobby Cohn (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. I'll be busy over the next few days but have responded to some of the comments you posted. Epicgenius (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Epicgenius, this was a pleasure to review. Thank you for your actions in remedying the concerns I had in a timely manner. If I may give you a compliment, the first part is very heavy on lists about architectural design. I just finished reading The Power Broker by Robert Caro and apparently he took inspiration for his long lists from Homer's The Illiad.[1] I want to say that you gave the lists in a very entertaining and pleasurable fashion and at no point did I think that the article, in spite of its length, was at all too long or repetive, much i the same way. This was a joy to read and I look forward to reviewing another nomination by you again some day in the future. All the best. Bobby Cohn (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


First pass comments

[edit]
I'll leave a list of concerning items here. Minor corrections can just be checked as {{done}} or something quick and convenient if you'd like. Anything more than a quick correction or comment, I'll leave a signature to allow for easier discussion. I'll ask you do the same.

Description

[edit]
  • Not that this article suffers for length, but the sentence "The Paradise was also one of the last atmospheric theaters to be built has me curious how close to the end/what came after it. No action needed.
  • Great section, no concerns. Good section, no concerns.

Grand Concourse

[edit]
  • Opening sentence "The Grand Concourse elevation of the facade is relatively restrained due to zoning restrictions along the corridor, which prohibited Loew's from adding a vertical sign there" is a little tricky to parse, it took me a couple passes but once I got it, it made sense. I'm not sure if this would benefit from being expanded, or it may be fine as is. Just pointing out for you to re-read and see if you have anything better. (1A)
    • I removed the part about the facade being relatively restrained. While it is in the source, it conflicts with other sources (e.g. the LPC source) which describe the facade as having elaborate decorations. Epicgenius (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think this was a necessary improvement. Looks good.
  • "The niche originally included a mechanical Seth Thomas clock and a sculpture of Saint George on horseback fighting a fire-breathing dragon; the Saint George sculpture moved every hour, slashing the dragon's neck. The sculptures of the dragon and Saint George have since been stolen, but Saint George's horse remains intact." I assume the clock is still there, based on the photos, but this isn't clear. Consider adding it? (3A)

"Other elevations", "Interior", "Ground-story spaces", "Promenade, parlors, and balcony lobbies"

[edit]
  • No concerns. Good sections, no action needed.

Auditorium

[edit]
  • "has 3,855 seats as of 2012" implies that the number of seats may have changed, see also the immediately subsequent sentence. Was this a result of alterations/construction or rather a miscount? (1A/3A)

"Design features", "Organ", "History", "Development"

[edit]
  • No concerns. Good sections, no action needed.

Use as movie theater

[edit]
  • "Visitors initially paid between 25 cents and one dollar per ticket." Entirely an editorial decision, but given that this statement is presented as is, it would be interesting to place this in context. I'm imagining one of two scenarios that give this context: (1) either the use of a template that accounts for inflation or (2) comparing to the rates of other theatres in the local area at the time. Neither of these are strictly necessary, but food for thought. Follow up comment, this pairs well with the later writing. See below. This is where criteria 3A is in contrast with criteria 3B, and this article doesn't suffer on account of its length.
  • "The Paradise was a frequent hangout for couples, many of whom kissed in the balcony." This one I question the relevance, but then again if two sources thought enough to mention it (presumably, haven't done the source assessment yet) then there's an argument that a Good Article would be fine to include it. No real concern here.

1920s and 1930s

[edit]
  • "n 1930, Loew's installed a Trans-tone wide screen at the Paradise Theatre. Stage shows at the Paradise were temporarily halted before resuming at the end of the year." As a result of the construction, or unrelated? (1A/3A)
  • "most expensive tickets were decreased to 75 cents." And the context requested earlier is given. Well done.

"1940s to 1960s", "1970s to 1990s"

[edit]
  • No concerns. Good sections, no action needed.

Abandonment and preservation

[edit]
  • "Chartwell defaulted on the theater's $4.8 million mortgage loan after the theater closed." This sentence implies cause and effect, but the timeline seems fuzzy since the closure was in 1994 and ABI took over in 1991. Maybe worth checking or rephrasing to avoid confusion. (1A)

Renovation

[edit]
  • Between DeCesare's halted renovation and DeGuardia's boxing plans, the timeline gets a bit muddled. Consider clearer time markers or transitions between years/events. (1A)
  • "Lieblich reversed many of the prior owners' additions to the theater, and he finished cleaning the decorations and installing new seats." A bit vague on what specific "additions" were reversed. Maybe worth specifying if it's clear from sources (e.g., mall-style renovations, screen partitions). (1A)
    • I've clarified this. Unfortunately the source doesn't really specify much beyond that. Epicgenius (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • From what I can see as well, I think this is the best we'll get given the sourcing. Good job.

Event venue and church conversion

[edit]
  • "Initially, the theater hosted events that catered to the local Latino community." Consider clarifying what types of events these were (e.g., musical genres, cultural performances, etc.) if the source supports it. "Catered to the local Latino community" is a bit vague as-is. (3A)
  • "The Paradise Theater was closed briefly in the late 2000s, reopening on October 24, 2009, after concert promoters Derrick Sanders and Shelby Joyner acquired it." Might be worth checking if the phrase "acquired it" refers to ownership or just operational control/lease. "Acquired" may imply ownership, which should be accurate per the source. (2B)
  • "At the time, there was little demand for additional theaters in the Bronx due to the popularity of online streaming media." This would benefit from clearer attribution ("According to officials..." or "A city report noted..." if available), to ensure it doesn't sound like editorial commentary or original research. (2B/5)

Impact

[edit]
  • "Architecture and Building said that 'decorative artifice is carried to the extreme' in the Paradise Theater." If possible, consider contextualizing whether this quote was meant as praise, critique, or neutral description. As-is, it reads slightly ambiguous. (3A/5)
  • "After the theater was subdivided, the journalist Joseph Lelyveld wrote in The New York Times that 'its glory days as a landmark in the Bronx can be only a memory'" Might benefit from clarifying the date of this comment to give a clearer sense of which renovation phase it's responding to. (3A)

Reference checks

[edit]

Quotes

[edit]
  • "dainty and graceful" ... "heavier, sturdier"  Offline, AGF
  • "Broadway to the Bronx"  Good. Well done with the style of the attribution using the source in text.
  • "this great thoroughfare of the Bronx"  Good. Proper attribution in text respects the style in the source.
  • "was an indelible part of the mythic Bronx childhood"  Good
  • "perhaps the most successful neighborhood operation in the Loew's circuit"  Offline, AGF
  • "now emits a dusty, almost eerie quality"  Good
  • "the most elaborate theatre outside of Manhattan" So the full quote from the Times-Union says "A third is Loew's Paradise Theatre, described as the most elaborate theatre outside of Manhattan" so it doesn't sound like the Times-Union itself is describing it but rather reporting on its description. I think it would benefit to clarify the prose in the text.
Consider When the theater opened in 1929, the Brooklyn Times-Union reported the Theatre as "described ... as "the most elaborate theatre outside of Manhattan", but I realize the use of ellipses here is clunky. Open to a suggestion.
I've rephrased this to the Brooklyn Times-Union wrote that the Paradise Theater had been described as "the most elaborate theatre outside of Manhattan". Epicgenius (talk) 23:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Good
  • "in every detail it will equal the pretentious display of talent that has marked the downtown [New York City] Loew theatres"  Good
  • "decorative artifice is carried to the extreme"  Good
  • "one of the last truly splendid movie palaces in New York"  Good
  • "considered one of the finest examples of the grand movie houses built during the earlier half of the century"  Paywalled, AGF
  • "beyond rococo"  Good
  • "flamboyant art-deco sensibility"  Good, disappointed that more wasn't quoted. "[A]bsurd Greek-revival statuary" is a hell of a line.
  • "its glory days as a landmark in the Bronx can be only a memory"  Good
  • "Eberson's grand design is a shambles"  Good
  • "the Paradise is a must on every moviegoer's list"
  • "mixed disbelief, laughter, and regret in just about equal measure" ... "architecturally giddy"  Good
  • "more like a European opera house, with its elaborate baroque stylings, gilded surfaces and marble staircases"  Good
  • "architectural atomic pile"  Good
  • "a piece not only of theater history, but of architectural history as well"  Paywalled, AGF
  • "an outdoor baroque Italian garden"
  • "an opulent escapist environment that could be enjoyed for as little as twenty-five cents"  Offline, AGF
  • "the building screams vintage cinema"  Good

OR, SYNTH, etc.

[edit]
  • "Despite the interior modifications, preservationists also asked the LPC to designate the interior."  I'm okay with this given the surrounding context and extensive sourcing, I don't think this veers into SYNTH territory.

Random reference spot check

[edit]

1 b 2 b 3 b 4 c 5 b 6 b 8 e 9 f 11 b 12 e 13 b 14 d 15 h 17 c 18 i 19 j 21 b 22 j 23 b 24 i 25 e 26 h 27 g 28 d 29 j 30 f 31 e 32 b 33 c 34 c 35 c 36 b 37 f 42 e 43 b 45 b 46 b 49 b 51 b 52 e 56 b 58 b 60 c 61 b 63 e 66 b 68 f 69 f 71 b 73 c 74 b 76 b 94 b 114 b 123 c 127 b 128 b 129 b 130 g 133 c 134 d 136 b 138 b 139 d 140 c 143 c 145 b 148 c 149 c 150 d 151 c 153 b 154 c 155 f 157 b 161 b 166 b 168 b 169 b 170 c 

python3 random_reference_generator.py 1286805184 references.txt 15

15% of the inline citations, selected randomly:

  • 2(b):  Good
  • 3(a):  Good
  • 4(a):  Offline, AGF
  • 8(a):  Good, source mentions three in NY but in-text prose expands area to NJ as well. Well written.
  • 8(c):  Good
  • 9(a):  Good
  • 9(e):  Good
  • 12(b):  Offline, AGF
  • 12(d):  Offline, AGF
  • 13(b):  Paywalled, AGF
  • 15(f):  Good
  • 18(b):  Good
  • 18(c):  Good
  • 18(d):  Good
  • 18(h):  Good
  • 19(b):  Good
  • 19(f):  Good
  • 19(h):  Good
  • 19(j):  Good
  • 26(a):  Offline, AGF
  • 29(g):  Paywalled, AGF
  • 30(d):  Good
  • 39(a):  Offline, AGF
  • 42(b):  Paywalled, AGF
  • 49(b):  Primary source confirms statement as best as I can tell
  • 50(a):  Good ... and this confirms the the rest of the spot check for ref. 49—well done.
  • 51(a):  Paywalled, AGF
  • 61(a):  Paywalled, AGF
  • 62(a):  Good
  • 68(b):  Paywalled, AGF
  • 68(c):  Paywalled, AGF
  • 69(c):  Good
  • 71(a):  Paywalled, AGF
  • 73(c):  Paywalled, AGF
  • 80(a):  Paywalled, AGF
  • 86(a):  Good
  • 87(a):  Good
  • 89(a):  Good. Intentionally two references?
  • 93(a):  Paywalled, AGF
  • 99(a):  Paywalled, AGF
  • 108(a):  Paywalled, AGF
  • 113(a):  Paywalled, AGF
  • 114(a):  Good
  • 116(a):  Paywalled, AGF
  • 130(c):  Good
  • 130(f):  Good
  • 143(c):  Paywalled, AGF
  • 148(b):  Good
  • 150(a):  Good
  • 155(d):  Good, again with the kissing‽
  • 156(a):  Good
  • 161(a):  Good
  • 163(a):  Good
  • 164(a):  Good
  • 166(a):  Good
  • 166(b):  Good
  • 167(a):  Good

Second pass comments

[edit]

Overall the little tidying requested above didn't change anything spectacularly that would require much additional reviewing. A second read of this finds no issues. I think this article is well done and deserving of GA status. Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2025 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paradise_Theater_(Bronx)&oldid=1287363295"