Talk:Ambassador Theatre (New York City)/GA1
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Simongraham in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 02:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
This is an article on New York theatres by Epicgenius and so, if my experience to anything to go by, is likely to be close to Good Article status already. I will start my review soon. simongraham (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Comments
editThis is a stable and well-written article. 98.2% of authorship is by Epicgenius. It is currently ranked B class and was a DYK nomination on 23 December.
- The article is of reasonable length with 3,465 words of readable prose, plus a referenced 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.
- The reference "Landmarks Preservation Commission 1987" has no corresponding source.
- I have fixed this. Epicgenius (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- All other references appear to be from reputable sources.
- Images have suitable Creative Commons licenses. Three of the sixth images are provided by Epicgenius, which is a very nice touch.
- Yeah... unfortunately a lot of theaters tended to have very few images of these. Epicgenius (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- Earwig's Copyvio Detector identifies a 31.0% chance of copyright violation with the theatre's entry on IBDB and 21.9% with the Shubert Company's own website. The overlap seems to be mainly the listing of shows. Please can you check and confirm.
- I have confirmed that the overlap appears to be mostly the titles of productions. Epicgenius (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- "Nevertheless, as of 2021 the theater has been used to show the same musical, Chicago, since 2003" Reword.
- "However, the revue was closed three months later because it was "indecent"." Can you explain this any more?
- I have added an explanation for the "indecent" quote, namely obscene language.
- "The stage was resurfaced with magnesium chloride in place of wood, and a partitioned control room was added." A link to magnesium chloride does not seem helpful. Is there a relevant wikilink?
- Actually, looking it over, the magnesium chloride link seems to be correct (it is used as a de-icer and was also used on this theater's stage to make it smoother). I have added it. Epicgenius (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: Please take a look at my comments above. simongraham (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Simongraham: Thanks for the comments. I have resolved all of the above issues now. Epicgenius (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius: Excellent work. I will complete the review. simongraham (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Assessment
editThe six good article criteria:
- 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.
- the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;
- 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.
- it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- 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).
- it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
- It has a neutral point of view.
- it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
- it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
- It is stable.
- it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- 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.
- images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
Congratulations, Epicgenius. This article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.