Jump to content

Talk:Portland Center Stage/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Well written, but some of the paragraphs are too long. The 2000 - present section's two paragraphs should be broken up into three or four paragraphs. Also, see references comment below.
    B. MoS compliance:
    I'm not a crazy MOS hound, but it looks good. It meets the MOS until they change it.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Well referenced. Too well referenced actually. Non controversial statements/sentences should use only one reference. Statements like "continued as a branch of OSF until 1994.[3][4]" don't seem very controversial to me. Use one reference when it will suffice. Too many superscript numbers detract from the readers flow.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Plenty of refs.
    C. No original research:
    No original ideas or synthesis.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    I expected to read something about their plays. You've done a good job researching and referencing, so maybe that information doesn't exist. If it does exist, that info should be added.
    B. Focused:
    Covers the business side of the PCS well.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Unbiased use of references.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    No edit warring in the short history that I can see.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Nice free image.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Would be nice to have an interior shot, but not relevant to this GAR.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    On hold for now. If that's all the sources that exist, then a little bit of moving text around does it. If information on their plays does exist this article can stay on hold for a week or be failed depending on what you guys want to do. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response

Thanks very much for the above review, will try to address the above points and get back to you in the time allotted. Cirt (talk) 00:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing points from above
  1. I broke up the 2000 - present section's two paragraphs into four paragraphs. Cirt (talk) 04:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I removed a few places where there were duplicate cites at the end of a sentence that weren't really necessary. Cirt (talk) 04:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I looked through many more sources than those that are actually used, but was not able to find much more noteworthy detail/discussion about individual plays, but on the other hand I was more looking to find stuff about the history of the organization itself. I take another look to see if I can do some more research on this, but not sure I will come up with much more. Cirt (talk) 04:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Thanks, I noticed there was some interesting history and changing of leadership with this organization, glad it is represented with appropriate wording. Cirt (talk) 04:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Nope, new article and all collaborate has been quite positive and constructive. Cirt (talk) 04:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I left a note with WP:OREGON, so we shall see if someone gets some free-use interior shots to upload to Wikimedia Commons for use in the article, not sure on a timetable for that though. Cirt (talk) 04:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Thanks for doing the review - like I said I am don't think much else exists out there as far as significant discussion historically of past plays, but I will try to do some more digging on that. Cirt (talk) 04:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I did a google news all dates no price search and there appears to be a lot of info out there.
  • Waterhouse, Ben (October 1, 2008). "Guys And Dolls (Portland Center Stage)". Willamette Week.
  • Hughley, Marty (September 28, 2008). "Portland Center Stage escapes into the colorful world of "Guys & Dolls"". The Oregonian.
  • Hughley, Marty (June 9, 2008). "Portland Center Stage hogs Drammy Awards spotlight". The Oregonian.
  • Berson, Misha (October 27, 2000). "Coleman gives Portland a drama to talk about". Seattle Times.
  • Google search for "Portland Center Stage"

What do you want to do? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah good sources, seems like more recent stuff primarily as well, I was looking in older archival databases. I will incorporate these sources into the article and add info, perhaps a new subsection just on the plays, in the next few days, and then get back to you. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ready to pass this as a GA if you're done working on it. If you're going to keep working, I can wait. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I was pretty much done, so if you think it is ready for GA then great. Of course the article will be improved further and probably expanded more on the road to further quality improvement and peer review. Cirt (talk) 02:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Portland_Center_Stage/GA1&oldid=244905710"