Talk:Bristol Old Vic/GA1

GA Review

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

Starting GAreview.Pyrotec (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Initial review

This article is broadly at GA-level, its well illustrated and is of adequate scope. However, there is lack of verification in some areas, I'm therefore putting the article On Hold so that they can be addressed.

Areas requiring attention are:

• History of the theatre -

• All of the second half of the middle para is unreferenced (unverifiable).
• Much of the final para prior to the Sarah Siddons citation is unreferenced.

• Formation of the Bristol Old Vic -

• The first sentence about being in the shadow of the Prince's is unreferenced.
• Conflict of information: The Prince's opened in 1867 and was destroyed over 70 years later (= 1947) - its post war; but the Prince's was apparently destroyed in WW II.
• In the following sentence, Ref 9 does not confirm the existence of a trust, it mentions Herbert Farjeon, who is not mentioned in the body of the article.
• What threat of closure? It's not mentioned before. The sentence either needs some expansion, or changed to "A threat of closure in 1942 ..."

• Touring -

• Unreferenced.
• Reference 36 is not a reference, it is merely the web address of a search facility at Bristol University.

• Artistic directors of the Bristol Old Vic -

• Unreferenced.

• Bristol Old Vic Theatre School -

• Unreferenced.

Pyrotec (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think all of those points have been addressed now. I would be grateful if you would take another look. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Confirmed.Pyrotec (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Main review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Congratulations on the quality of the article. I'm awarding GA-status.Pyrotec (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)