Jump to content

Talk:Theatre Royal Drury Lane 8th September 1974

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Theatre Royal Drury Lane 8th September 1974/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Willbb234 (talk · contribs) 19:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Reviewing. Willbb234 (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Fails WP:MOS. Too many quotations in the 'Performance' sub-section. Makes the text hard to read.
@Willbb234: Good point; I've copyedited the section to reduce direct quotations of merely descriptive content (for instance, the article didn't need to quote exact language to convey that a song had a swing rhythm). I've retained some quotations that express a critical judgment that can't be paraphrased into Wikipedia's voice, but these are specifically attributed. It should be more readable now. —BLZ · talk 20:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Brandt Luke Zorn: Ok, thank you. Will review again tomorrow when I have time. Regards, Willbb234 (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    Plenty of reliable sources
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Covers all areas in depth
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  4. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Stable
  5. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Fine
  6. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Just the one problem, but should be easily fixed.

GA Second Review

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Quotations reduced and appropriately replaced with suitable text.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    A well-rounded article well verified and well written.