Talk:Theatre Royal Drury Lane 8th September 1974/GA1

GA Review

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

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

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

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)

@Brandt Luke Zorn: Ok, thank you. Will review again tomorrow when I have time. Regards, Willbb234 (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

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.