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

Nominator: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 03:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Utopes (talk · contribs) 17:04, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   split vertically into an ornate central bay - "Ornate" seems to be praising the structure. Is there another word to use?

I meant to say "heavily decorated" (it would literally be too much detail to mention in the article, but the historic structure report describes exactly what these decorations are). - EG

Is fine then.  Done Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To the south (left) of the main entrance - In the previous sentence, it was said "to the north (or right)". Saying "south (left)" right after that phrasing might not be necessary, or maybe add an "or" before "left" within the parentheses so that it matches the north version?

Changed to "south (or left)". - EG

 Done Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Next to the mezzanine foyer are separate sets of rooms for men and women, each of which include a restroom, a separate washroom, and a lounge; the women's rooms also include an octagonal room for cosmetics. - This is a really long sentence.

I split this up. - EG

 Done Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the balcony foyer itself, the walls are divided into panels with gold borders, and there are velvet curtains. - The addition of "and there are velvet curtains" feels like an afterthought within the sentence. What are the curtains a part of, and where? Are the curtains ON the balcony?

I clarified that the curtains are on the walls. - EG

 Done Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The auditorium originally had 3,021, 3,300, or 3,600 seats. - To be a bit pedantic, the auditorium only had one number of seats; we just don't know what that number is, and apparently the sources are mixed. Could it instead be said like "The amount of seats that the auditorium originally had is contested...there may have been either X, Y, or Z seats"?

Good point, I hadn't thought of it that way. I clarified that the number of seats is disputed. - EG

 Done Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On either side of the proscenium arch is an organ loft, which is flanked by four elaborate columns that are topped by a cornice and a domed canopy. - In what way is the organ loft flanked? And what makes the columns elaborate?

The report says, "Flanking either side, reminiscent of the coveted boxes of traditional theaters, are the organ pipe chambers. They consist of four ornamented and fluted columns supporting a lavishly carved cornice, surmounted by a shell canopy" Unfortunately it doesn't elaborate further. The report doesn't say that the organ lofts are flanked, so I've removed that. - EG

 Done Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Backstage, sets for up to ten live acts could be prepared in advance - I'm afraid I don't understand this line. I think I know what you're trying to say, but "sets for up to ten" is confusing me. Set up ten?

I mean to say "sets for (as many as ten) live acts" (≤10 live acts). Not sure how to get that across clearly; "no more than 10 live acts" is even more wordy. - EG

When I read this the first time, I was getting confused by the multiple definitions of "set". As in, upon reading, I thought it meant to say that "the backstage can setup ten live acts", but I realized shortly after that it was the sets for the acts, i.e. the materials and props and whatnot (I assume). I wish there was a different word to use, but this should probably be fine still.  Done Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and there may briefly have been live shows during the war as well - Is there a better way to say this? Perhaps this could have its own sentence.

 Done Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 16:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After Chris Christie became New Jersey's governor, in 2010, he took back $11 million in unspent UEZ funds from the Jersey City government - The way this sentence is structured, it's a bit hard to tell whether the 2010 is just meant to be the year Christie became governor, or if the 2010 is when he took back $11 million. If it's the latter, I would suggest "he took back $11 million... from the Jersey City in 2010"; if there's a more specific month that could go along with the year, that might be helpful too.

 Done Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 16:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When the Jersey Theatre shuttered as a movie palace in 1986 - Is there a different word that could be used instead of "shuttered"?

 Done Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 16:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   All the references look good and back up the material from my check!

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Observers have variously categorized the theatre's style as Spanish Baroque, Italian rococo, or "dripping gold-leaf style" - Is this important to include the various observer details? Surely there's an answer to what style the theatre would be, and if not, does "dripping gold-leaf style" warrant the attention as the only mention of "gold-leaf" (or "gold-leaf style") in the whole article?

There actually is some disagreement over what architectural styles the theater is designed in. Some decorative elements may belong to multiple styles, and there are many examples of buildings being designed in multiple styles. It may be that several or all of these styles are correct, though thinking about it, "gold-leaf style" isn't an actual style unlike the others mentioned here. - EG

 Done Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

although it is unknown who made the figures - Feels like an awkward add-on; I wouldn't have asked who made the figures had this not been mentioned. Could it be said "made by an unknown artist" earlier instead?

Done. - EG

 Done Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

due to noise ordinances, this bell did not ring after 10:00 p.m. - Feels like trivia, not sure if it's necessary to go on a tangent about noise ordinances and why the bell only rings at whichever times of the day.

Removed. - EG

 Done Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

as a safety measure, the orchestra lift could not move if any of the doors in that corridor were open. - Is it necessary to describe the conditions that the elevator would operate or not operate under? I'm skeptical whether there's even a need to mention the orchestra having a lift, much less the safety details of said lift.

Removed the part about the safety features of the lift. However, I still think it's relevant to mention the lift itself, rather than a static stage. Movie theaters don't typically have lifts, or even large stages, unless they also present live acts. - EG

That's fine then.  Done Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like the other Wonder Theatres, the Loew's Jersey Theatre has a "Wonder Morton" theater pipe organ - I can't locate within the article whether or not a "Wonder Morton" is described in this article? It was mentioned once in the lead, and mentioned again in this section, but I don't think there's sufficient context to explain what a "Wonder Morton" is. People might then search for Wonder Theatre or Wonder Morton, but these links are red. Is it just a pipe organ? At the moment, with the context that I can find in the article, it seems to me that the phrase "Wonder Morton" be dropped here, and the concept that the theatre having a pipe organ would remain intact.

The current organ is formally known as the Bob Balfour Memorial Wonder Morton - This is the only other setting where "Wonder Morton" is said in its length. But without a description of what makes a Wonder Morton a Wonder Morton, I don't see this being that important to include (I'm sure there's a reason it's here, but I'm not seeing any context or reason to hone in on it). Even if there aren't many Wonder Mortons left, this would seem more akin to trivia, if all that is known about it from the article is that it's a named organ, and there's not many of them left.

For both of these, the reason it's described as a "Wonder Morton" is because the "Wonder Theatre" label is derived directly from the fact that they have a Wonder Morton organ. The Wonder Mortons are characterized by the fact that they were made by the Morton Organ Company for enormous movie theaters and have 4 manuals and 23 pipes. Since only 5 such organs were ever built, all of them for the NYC area, I felt it was worth mentioning. - EG

Currently in the lede, it says the Loew's Jersey featured a "Wonder Morton" theater pipe organ manufactured by the Robert Morton Organ Company. I'm still struggling to see what information is lost if it instead said: "the Loew's Jersey featured a theater pipe organ manufactured by the Robert Morton Organ Company". Everything is the same, except for that the name of "Wonder Morton" is no longer namedropped in quotes. Details about the Wonder Morton are never really investigated within the Loew's Jersey Theatre article, apart from that it's the only Wonder Morton in a Wonder Theatre (which can be stated as "the only organ of its type still being used in a Wonder Theatre", or something similar). If we had a notable Wonder Morton article, or something comparable, maybe it would be worth mentioning the name itself, because then context can be connected about why the name is important. Without it, it becomes a proper noun to keep track of that doesn't really have a payoff in the article. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:51, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removing from lede is fine.  Done Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 16:41, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

he recalled that he sometimes spent 16 hours a day on the renovation. - Is a personal anecdote about how many hours they worked on that job necessary to include?

Removed. - EG

 Done Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because many of the volunteers were not particularly skilled in construction, many aspects of the renovation took several years. - What aspects? And was "being not particularly skilled in construction" the sole reason the delay occurred? Maybe there's a better way to phrase that, were they volunteering to be construction workers, or were their tasks something different? Could something like "The volunteers did not have experience with renovation, so progress had been slowed for several years" work?

Yeah, they were volunteering to be construction workers. Limited funding was a contributing factor. I changed it to "Many of the volunteers were not particularly skilled in construction, and some aspects of the renovation took several years". - EG

That's fine.  Done Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The theater still had no functioning air conditioning and was operating at a net loss by 2013, despite hosting 50 events annually. - Is hosting 50 events an assumption that there's no net loss? The use of despite seems to be painting that picture, but correlating the no airconditioning + net loss with "but they were hosting 50 events annually" seems unnecessary.

I changed this to "The theater still had no functioning air conditioning and was operating at a net loss by 2013, at which point it hosted 50 events annually." - EG

That's fine.  Done Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Pretty neutral from the looks of it! All of the sentences that were less than neutral, I already mentioned above. :)

2. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Stable as it gets!

3. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images look fantastic!

4. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This was a great read so far! Thanks for your efforts in putting this together, I'm constantly blown away by the quality. I found some minor things that I mentioned all above, so hopefully these can all be addressed. Thanks for your work and for your patience; I look forward to hearing from you and hope this can get passed soon! Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks for taking up this review @Utopes, I appreciate it. I'll address these comments within two or three days, since I'll be pretty busy tonight and tomorrow. Epicgenius (talk) 02:00, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   No problem! There was a lot to parse through haha, tried my best to keep the suggestions reasonable. 😅 98% of this article was already well written and cited from the getgo! Take your time, I'll take a look whenever you're ready. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:03, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks again for taking up this review @Utopes. I think I've responded to or addressed all the comments you made above. Epicgenius (talk) 00:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Looking at this now! @Epicgenius: Will take a bit but I'll ping you again when done. (Edit, actually I'm going to take a short break and come back to this) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:48, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   @Epicgenius: Thanks for bearing with me; that should be my responses to everything you've sent! I think there's still a few more things unaddressed, and I had a further comment about the need to mention the name of "Wonder Morton". Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:53, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Actually, it looks like you did some of the fixes that didn't have a note, like the "shuttering" has been replaced for one, so thank you! I still have a qualm with the "Wonder Morton" namedrop but besides that, that's all I can see needing to be tweaked. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:56, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   @Utopes, thanks for the review. I just realized that I forgot to actually reply to the last three comments under criteria 1 when I fixed them; my bad. I've addressed the Wonder Morton comment by removing that name from the lead. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:22, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   @Epicgenius: Taking it out of the lede works for me. It has some mention in the body but that is more due weight, because it is explained that it is in the Wonder Theatre there. I think that is all my concerns! I think this can be passed now, thank you so much for writing this! Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 16:43, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]