Talk:Theatre Royal Drury Lane 8th September 1974

Latest comment: 4 years ago by Willbb234 in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

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.