Talk:Wieting Opera House

Did you know nomination

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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

( Comment or view )

( Article history links:

• Wieting Opera House
• John Wieting
• Mary Elizabeth Wieting Johnson

)

The 1881 ruination

• ... that New York's Wieting Opera House burnt down and was rebuilt on three separate occasions by its proprietors, John Wieting and Mary Elizabeth Wieting?
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Kate Baer, Template:Did you know nominations/Lloyd Simmons, Template:Did you know nominations/The American Committee for the Defense of British Homes

Created by Eddie891 (talk) and Silver seren (talk). nominated by Eddie891 at 02:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC).

• In progress. Three large new well researched articles linked as per the main hook. Neutral coverage and QPQs offered by the authors. Victuallers (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

1. to Mary Elizabeth Wieting Johnson. Lots of refs and its new enough and its neutral. She was the sole owner of the last version. I know its tricky but "Mary inherited his estate and began managing the opera house." implies that she was not the proprieter of the first version. However I have decided that the hook doesnt refer to their joint ownership but that they were both, at some time, proprietors, thank you Victuallers (talk) 12:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
2. to John Wieting Its a GA and its a recent article! Fine. Victuallers (talk) 09:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
3. to Wieting Opera House A B class article. Amazing that these three articles share so little common text. Well done you two. I added an image to the nom which the picker may care to consider. Thank you. Victuallers (talk) 10:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

To T:DYK/P2 without image

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GhostRiver (talk · contribs) 21:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I'll be taking a look at this article for the January 2022 GAN backlog drive. If you haven't already signed up, please feel free to join in! Although QPQ is not required, if you're feeling generous, I also have a list of GA nominations of my own right here.

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Infobox and lede

• While grammatically correct as is, it feels like there should be something before "from 1852 to 1930" to fill out that first sentence
  • You're gonna have to help me out on this one. I agree it feels like it needs a little more, but my brain isn't computing what would fit...
• "and was rebuilt both times"
  • Done

History

• Similarly to above, feels like something is missing after "The block", needs equivocator like "The block in Syracuse on which Wieting Opera House was located"
  • Done

Wieting Hall

• Do we know what year Wieting purchased the building?
  • will look in to
    • Added
• Rearrange order of sentences so it starts with why he purchased it and then goes into he either funded improvements or built it himself
• "held in the hall at that point."
• "Salina street" → "Salina Street"
• Comma after "Seating was first interlocked wooden chairs"
• MOS:TIME suggests "noon" or "midnight" be used over "12:00"
  • Done the above
• That being said, the part about the tensions arising at the 1858 convention read as trivia
  • I'm not so sure... a number of sources (including the Tammany one cited which was published in 1895-- so over thirty years after it happened) highlight it as a notable occurrence at the hall.

Wieting Opera House

• "Twenty four" → "Twenty-four"
• Rather than having em dashes around losses from the fire were estimated at $400,000, I would just split the sentence after "again burnt to the ground"
• I'd assume MOS suggests that there should be an en dash rather than a hyphen in "Shubert-Wieting", but I could be wrong
  • done the above
• Awkward em dash after "namely the Wieting"; without its mate and with a space after the dash, which is against MOS:DASH
  • Revised pgrasing
• "because of a poor reception" → "due to a poor reception"
  • done

Later history

• The final Wieting Unclear if this is the person Wieting or the building
• When did Mary die? Seems significant if her estate managed the house for some time
  • Clarified the above

References

• Note [a] should end in a period
  • Done

General comments

• Images are all public domain and relevant to the article
• I would move the second one (of Wieting Block) down a smidge for aesthetic reasons
  • Done
• No stability concerns in the revision history
• Earwig raises no concerns

Thank you for your patience; in addition to my migraines, my heart has been acting up recently. Putting on hold now. As always, feel free to ping me with questions, and please let me know when you're finished. — GhostRiver 16:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @GhostRiver-- one or two questions, otherwise all your points should be actioned. Let me know if there's anything else. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Eddie891 Thank you for your patience as I have been dealing with several health issues. I have added a phrase to the lede, and if the 1858 convention seems relevant in the sources, it's fine to include. Passing now! — GhostRiver 18:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)