Talk:St James's Theatre/GA1

Latest comment: 5 years ago by Tim riley in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 23:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Images

edit
  • I think that "Vivien Leigh and Laurence Olivier" needs a tag explaining why it is free use in the US.
  • At ACR and FAC I have had comments which started "I know that it is obvious, but …" However, doing a little research it seems that you are right.
  • Optional: Centre the captions.
  • No. A matter of personal preference. Hence labelled "optional".
  • Optional: alt text.

Prose

edit
  • Note 5. Could you have a look at the punctuation?

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

  • "who mounted a series of revivals and a few new burlesques and extravaganzas, which failed to pay" Marginal for GA, but "failed to pay" may not make immediate sense as meaning 'failed to show a profit'. That is they "paid" in that money came in, just not as much as went out.
  • The quote towards the end of 1858-69 ("She had done nobly …") is fifty words long. MOS:BQ suggests that quotes of "more than about 40 words" should be block quotes. At GA fifty is acceptable to me, but I feel that for once adherence to the MOS may improve the article. Your choice.
  • There seems to be a lucuna in the text between 1871 and 1875
  • For GA I am inclined to agree.
  • "She had made her name in management founding and running the Court Theatre" Should there be punctuation?

It is very pleasing and a little frustrating that I can find nothing apart from the minutiae above to pick at. Probably the easiest GAN assessment I have carried out and an article of a standard well above that of most GAs. If you could come back to me on the above points, I shall be delighted to pass it. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

All done, I think, except for the fourth bullet point, as explained. Tim riley talk 17:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
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