Talk:Merle Reskin Theatre/GA1

Good article review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (inline citations): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   

7. Pass/Fail:

   a Well written:

   b Factually accurate:

   c Broad in coverage:

   d NPOV:

   e Stable:

   f Images:

   g Overall:

If the article failed the nomination, the comments below will help in addressing the problems. Once these tasks are accomplished, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, please feel free to take it to a GA review. You can see how I, personally, applied the six criteria above at this link. I sincerely thank you for your work so far.

If your article passed the nomination, congratulations on making Wikipedia all the better. Your contributions are greatly appreciated. If you didn't know there is a groovy user box, {{User Good Articles}}, for those users who have significantly contributed to a good article. The "essay" linked above is also how the criteria are applied to passing articles as well. Thanks again for your hard work.

Review by: IvoShandor

IvoShandor 07:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

More specific comments

• Criteria #1: Well written.

• Prose:

• Intro: Should conform to WP:LEAD. The exact address in unencyclopedic.
• Try to avoid vague references to time, such as: to this day.
• Consider rewording: . . . John B. Drake I had been a business partner of Blackstone's

• Maybe try: was Blackstone's business partner.

• Copy edit: for mistakes like that above.

• Structure

• Probably use: 'Building', 'History' (combining together with it the section titled 'The Merle Reskin Theatre'), and 'Theater School.' Per MOS.

• MOS

• Full dates should be linked to enable user prefs. Years can be linked if they provide context.
• The use of articles, a, an, and the, is discouraged in sub section headings.

• Jargon

• Is there a convention on the Wiki for the spelling of 'theater (theatre),' I see both here.

• Criteria #2: Verifiable

• References

• Strong overall.

• Inline citations

• Duly utilized

• Reliable

• Sources are from universities, newspapers, and books, none of which seem to be in non-compliance with WP:V.

• Original research

• Does not appear to contain any unverifiable information that may qualify as OR, per WP:OR.

• Criteria #3: Thoroughness

• Major aspects

• Large gaps in history section; 1913-1930, 1948-1986, 1989-present.

• Focus

• Focus the theatre school section on its specific relation to the topic of the article. As it is now, that section is a stub for History of Goodman School of Drama.

• Criteria #4: NPOV

• Fair representation

• Seems a pretty fair and accurate representation of what is most likely a largely non-controversial subjects. Though, theaters, especially in the past, tended to draw criticism based upon what types of performances they played host to, this is probably something to, at least, look into, in the interest of NPOV.

• All significant views

• See above.

• Criteria #5: Stable

• Does not appear to be the subject of ongoing edit warring.

• Criteria #6: Images

• Tags/captions

• Tags are fine. Captions need some work.

• Lack of

• N/A

• Free use

• Images are free use.

IvoShandor 07:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)