Talk:Winter Garden Theatre/GA1

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Simongraham in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 13:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

This looks like yet another well-researched article on New York theatres by Epicgenius and is likely to be close to Good Article status already. I will start my review soon. simongraham (talk) 13:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Comments

edit

This is a stable and well-written article. 96.0% of authorship is by Epicgenius. It is currently ranked B class and a DYK nominee.

  • The article is of appropriate length, 4,913 words of readable prose, plus a referenced list of notable productions and an infobox.
  • It is written in a summary style, consistent with relevant Manuals of Style.
  • Citations seem to be thorough.
  • Is BroadwayWorld.com a reliable sources?
  • Other references appear to be from reputable sources.
  • Our theatres to-day and yesterday (1913) (14579807750).jpg needs appropriate licensing tags added.
  • Other images have appropriate licensing and public domain or CC tags.
  • Earwig's Copyvio Detector identifies a 9.1% chance of copyright violation.
  • The article on Adam Style states that it should be called "Style of the Brothers Adam".
  • "The Winter Garden Theatre's building dates to its construction in 1896 as the rebuilt American Horse Exchange" seems to be a summary of the previous section.
  • I see no other obvious spelling or grammar errors.

@Epicgenius: Another well-constructed piece of work. Please ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 02:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@simongraham, sorry, I realized I didn't ping you. I have responded to your comments. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Epicgenius: Great work. I will complete the review now. simongraham (talk) 08:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Assessment

edit

The six good article criteria:

  1. It is reasonable well written.
    the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; 
    it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice. 
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; 
    all inline citations are from reliable sources; 
    it contains no original research; 
    it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism; 
    it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. 
  3. It is broad in its coverage
    it addresses the main aspects of the topic. 
    it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). 
  4. It has a neutral point of view.
    it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view. 
  5. It is stable.
    it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute. 
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; 
    images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. 

Congratulations, Epicgenius. This article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

  Pass simongraham (talk) 08:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC)Reply