Talk:Cable Car Cinema

GA Review

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.

---

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

Nominator: Rhododendrites (talk · contribs) 01:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk · contribs) Hi, I had this article on my list for a bit and I finally have time to review it!10:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I’m on mobile so the formatting in the table looks a bit awkward. Let me know if I should clarify something! Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 11:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	3=Lead: •single screen -> single-screen •I would say maybe expand the lead by another 2-4 sentences. Try to summarize the entirety of the article. I think the Interview should be mentioned in the lead Description and programming: •This heading seems pretty clunky. Why not just “description” •Teddy Bear's Picnic —> Teddy Bears’ Picnic •link total revenue History: •link cable car •though -> Although •the historic preservation commission. Which one? •its area -> that area •some time doors —> some time the doors •link 35mm film •link digital projection system •Though it was profitable —>Although it was profitable •link multiplexes Reception: •link Entertainment Weekly •link Marquee •Marquee Theater". —> I think the period goes inside the quotes
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	3=Spot check: •“According to the owners, ticket sales only accounted for about 35-40% of total revenue” Y •“in 1976 was a failure, with no customers buying tickets, and the business took several years to find an audience” Y •“The space underwent renovations in 2010” Y •“The cinema attracted some attention for being one of the first to show the controversial film, The Interview, after North Korean hackers attacked Sony Pictures Entertainment and threatened theaters considering a screening” Y
	2b. 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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: Thanks for the review! I'm not sure if you're done yet, but I went ahead and fixed the things you flagged above here. A couple exceptions: "marquee" is only used as a proper noun, and that award is linked via the issuing publication, and I think MOS:LOGICAL calls for periods outside of quotes except when including sentence punctuation from the source as part of a quote. Otherwise, I think I got everything. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

oops! Didn't expand the lead. Will get to that shortly. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

ok  Done now — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites, good work on this. No further complaints from me. Passing Y. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

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.