Talk:Hudson Theatre/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 13:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

This looks like another well-researched article on the theatres of New York by Epicgenius and is again likely to be close to Good Article status. I will start a review soon. simongraham (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments

This is a stable and well-written article. 78.5% of authorship is by Epicgenius with a substantial contribution from Mertbiol. It is currently ranked Sart class and was a DYK on 15 November.

• The article is of substantial length, 5,537 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.
• References appear to be from reputable sources.
• The image in the Infobox needs a caption.
  • I have added one. Epicgenius (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• Images have appropriate licensing and public domain or CC tags; many are marked as own work, including a few images submitted by Epicgenius. This is excellent.
• The imagery is scattered around the document and aligned both right and left, so could be subject to issues with some resolutions as per MOS:IMAGELOCATION. The recommendation is right alignment by default.
  • I've done this. I put a few images on the left to avoid a monotonous image alignment, but I moved them all to the right now. Epicgenius (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
    • I know what you mean. I too prefer a variation as it is less monotonous but I understand the concern and sometimes we have to allow the functional to beat the aesthetic. simongraham (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• Earwig's Copyvio Detector identifies a 18.7% chance of copyright violation with a page on Tony nominations on Playbill. The page does not seem to be a violation. Can you please confirm.
  • I checked, and the match is mainly just a quote from the Tony Awards Administration Committee, as well as the proper names of the committee itself and a production. Epicgenius (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Thank you. I thought so. simongraham (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• "Above the center bay is a segmentally-arched broken pediment with a male head (probably depicting the god Apollo) and a lyre." I am not sure what as "a segmentally-arched broken pediment" is. Is there a way to make that clearer?

  • 

    Pediment at center

    Basically, this is a pediment with two characteristics (it's the center pediment in this image). It is generally shaped like a segmental arch. There is a break in the center of the pediment, so in architectural parlance it's a "broken pediment". This is compared with the pediments over the windows immediately to the left and right, which have segmental arches but are not broken. I have reworded this now. Epicgenius (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Thank you. That is helpful. I think the prose is easier to understand now. simongraham (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• "The orchestra has yellow side-walls with paneled pilasters." I believe sidewalls is a single word.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• "It then served as a network radio studio for CBS from 1934 to 1937 and as a NBC television studio from 1949 to 1960." Should it be "an NBC"?
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• I see no other obvious spelling or grammar errors.

@Epicgenius: Another epic piece of work, and a substantial article. Please ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 10:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Simongraham: Thanks for the review. I have addressed all of these issues now. Epicgenius (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: You are welcome. I will start my assessment now. simongraham (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Assessment

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) 21:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)