Talk:New Amsterdam Theatre/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 23:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

This looks like yet another excellent article on the theatres of New York by Epicgenius and is therefore likely to be close to Good Article status already. I will start a review shortly. simongraham (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments

This is a stable and well-written article. 95.7% of authorship is by Epicgenius. It is currently ranked B class and a DYK nominee.

• The article is of appropriate length, 6,732 words of readable prose, plus a list of notable productions and an infobox.
• It is written in a summary style, consistent with relevant Manuals of Style.
• Citations seem to be thorough.
• References appear to be from reputable sources.
• Images have appropriate licensing and either CC or public domain tags.
• Earwig's Copyvio Detector identifies a 34.7% chance of copyright violation with the LPC citation (Pearson, 1979). Suggest looking at this and rewording if necessary.
• Consider rephrasing "The theater's current production since 2014 is Aladdin." to "The theater's production since 2014 has been Aladdin."
• Rephrase "Also common were Shakespeare productions, as well as productions based around "kiddie fare" such as Mother Goose and Humpty Dumpty." to remove the proximate repetition of "productions".
• I see no other obvious spelling or grammar errors.

@Epicgenius: Please ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 23:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@simongraham, thanks for taking a look. I have addressed all the issues you brought up. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Thank you. I see you have also added another reference but it has no citations. Can you explain please? simongraham (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Basically, it is a further reading, since I think all the relevant info in the article is also described in the book. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Epicgenius:I suggest adding a "Further reading" section so that is clear, but that is not a GA criteria so I will start the assessment anyway. simongraham (talk) 09:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Assessment

The six good article criteria:

1. It is reasonable well written

   the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

   it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable

   it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

   all inline citations are from reliable sources;

   it contains no original research;

   it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

   it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.

3. It is broad in its coverage

   it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

   it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. It has a neutral point of view

   it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

5. It is stable

   it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

   images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Congratulations, Epicgenius. This article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass simongraham (talk) 09:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)