Talk:Theatre Royal, Bath/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 14:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK Rodw, I've made most of the needed edits myself. You really do seem to have an issue with the use or lack of use of commas! The quality isn't great but I think it's passable. The only thing I'm going to question now is your claim that it is "one of the most important theatres", yet I see no source in the body to back it up. If a reputable institution claims it to be then say "cited by xxx as one of the most important theatres" and source it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your edits- my use of commas and apostrophes can leave something to be desired. The article doesn't say "most important" but "more important" however the only sources using that wording are mirrors of this article or Bath Spa which is trying to "sell" a course based at the Theatre Royal. The Theatres Trust does say "One of the most important surviving examples of Georgian theatre architecture" so I have changed it to that wording.— Rod ^talk 15:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you beef up the lede a bit? Some mention of productions and the festivals I think would be good.

I've added some of the famous actors who performed - is this the sort of thing you meant?— Rod ^talk 16:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you mention some of its most notable plays? Or are there too many to really only mention a few successfully? Where you say "During World War II Donald Wolfit, Irene Vanbrugh, John Gielgud and Sybil Thorndike performed, but audiences declined." you could add, appearing in productions of plays such as xx.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are loads in Lowndes book but I've added a few of the more significant.— Rod ^talk 17:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Good job.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]