Talk:Gerald Schoenfeld Theatre/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 13:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like one of many well-written articles from Epicgenius on New York theatres. It is likely to be close to Good Article status, but I will confirm this with a review shortly. simongraham (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

This is a stable and well-written article. 97.2% of authorship is by Epicgenius. It is currently ranked B class and a DYK nominee.

The article is of appropriate length, 4,888 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.
There is a risk of WP:CITEKILL. For example the statement "The Schoenfeld is operated by the Shubert Organization." has three citations, although I felt it was probably rather uncontroversial. A similar number of citations is given for the sentence "The Plymouth was originally decorated in a brown, blue, and gold color scheme". Are all this necessary?
References appear to be from reputable sources.
Images have appropriate licensing and public domain or CC tags. Thank you, Epicgenius, for adding your eight contributions to the selection, without which the article would not have anywhere as much impact.
Earwig's Copyvio Detector identifies a 34.6% chance of copyright violation, confirming that there is a low likelihood. The highest correlation is with the theatre's entry in the Landmarks Preservation Commission report.
There is a single missing space which I have corrected.
The grammar in the sentence "A terracotta cornice and a brick parapet runs above the auditorium facade." is ambiguous. Do both the cornice and parapet run above the facade? In which case, I believe the verb should be plural. Can you please check.
There are no other obvious grammar or spelling errors.

@Epicgenius: Please can you take a look at this and ping me with your thoughts. simongraham (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Simongraham, thanks for your comments. I've addressed all of these issues now. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: Great work. I will start the review now. simongraham (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment[edit]

The 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.
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 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 has a neutral point 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 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) 16:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]