Talk:Portland Center Stage/GA1
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Cirt in topic GA Review
GA Review
editGA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- 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.
- A. Prose quality:
- 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.
- A. References to sources:
- 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.
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Unbiased use of references.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit warring in the short history that I can see.
- 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:
- 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.
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- 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)
- Pass or Fail:
- 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)
- Addressing points from above
- I broke up the 2000 - present section's two paragraphs into four paragraphs. Cirt (talk) 04:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Nope, new article and all collaborate has been quite positive and constructive. Cirt (talk) 04:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Sounds good. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- Sounds good. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)