Talk:A Christmas Story: The Musical/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Nominator:

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 13:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll take this review; it will be used in the WikiCup and the ongoing backlog drive. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

General comments

 * The nominator is not the primary contributor to the article, having around 9.8% of current authorship. I do not see if the consent of significant contributors has been obtained per WP:GAN/I.
 * There is significant uncited material in the article, which needs to be cited per GA criterion 2b).
 * Certain sections seem unnecessary to me. These include: the "Characters" section, which in effect duplicates the "Casts" section; the "Musical numbers" section which in effect duplicates the "Synopsis" section; and the "Nominated awards" and "Original Broadway production" sections which in effect duplicate each other.
 * Some citations are inaccessible (e.g. Gans 2019) or not pointing to a relevant page (e.g. citation 17 pointing to ).
 * The prose is not concise, often reverting to simple lists of names: see the "New York City" and "National tour" subsections for examples.
 * Additional images would be nice; the infobox image needs a caption.
 * The "Critical reception" section consists of two lengthy quotes. These could easily be paraphrased per WP:LIMITED to avoid copyright infringement. More reviews, perhaps of different productions, would be helpful for criterion 3a). &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, are you planning on returning to this? &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)