Talk:Majestic Theatre (Broadway)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 03:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
This looks like another excellent article on the theatres of New York by Epicgenius and is once again likely to be close to Good Article status already. I will start my review shortly. simongraham (talk) 03:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]This is a stable and well-written article. 97.4% of authorship is by Epicgenius. It is currently ranked B class and a DYK nominee.
- The article is of appropriate length, 4,595 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.
- There are citations from the Shubert organization's website which would ideally be replaced by something more independent.
- The Shubert Organization source is really only used to cite seating data and proscenium dimensions. Given that they are the theater's owners, I think the Shuberts would know the most about that specific data. As for the fact that the Shuberts operate the Majestic... the source can be replaced in theory, but the Shuberts have owned the theater for so long that any such source would be quite old. Epicgenius (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- That seems reasonable. simongraham (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- The Shubert Organization source is really only used to cite seating data and proscenium dimensions. Given that they are the theater's owners, I think the Shuberts would know the most about that specific data. As for the fact that the Shuberts operate the Majestic... the source can be replaced in theory, but the Shuberts have owned the theater for so long that any such source would be quite old. Epicgenius (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- All other references appear to be from reputable sources, assuming the Internet Broadway Database is.
- The IBDB was established as a reliable source at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Broadway theaters/archive1, if that helps. Epicgenius (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. simongraham (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- The IBDB was established as a reliable source at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Broadway theaters/archive1, if that helps. Epicgenius (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Images have appropriate licensing and CC tags. Many of them seem to have come from Wiki Loves Monuments 2021.
- Earwig's Copyvio Detector identifies a 14.5% chance of copyright violation with Henderson's book. I suggest looking at this and rewording if necessary.
- The entirety of this match is the name of the book itself. Epicgenius (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Bizarre! Excellent work. simongraham (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- The entirety of this match is the name of the book itself. Epicgenius (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- "A cornice and a parapet with finials runs above the sixth story of the stage house." Is "a cornice and a parapet with finials" a singular noun?
- I've fixed it. Epicgenius (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- I see no other obvious spelling or grammar errors.
@Epicgenius: Please ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Simongraham: Thanks for the review. I've addressed all the issues you've brought up. Epicgenius (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius: Perfect. Thank you. I'll start the assessment now. simongraham (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Assessment
[edit]The six good article criteria:
- 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.
- the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct
- 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.
- it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- 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).
- it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
- It has a neutral point of view
- it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
- it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
- It is stable
- it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- 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.
- images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
Congratulations, Epicgenius. This article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.