Talk:Bernard B. Jacobs Theatre/GA1

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 17:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

This looks like another excellent article on the theatres of New York by Epicgenius and is once again likely to be close to Good Article status already. I will start a review very shortly. simongraham (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments
This is a stable and well-written article. 96.3% of authorship is by Epicgenius. It is currently ranked B class and a DYK nominee.


 * The article is of appropriate length, 4,173 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.
 * References appear to be from generally reputable sources, although there are multiple uses of the Shubert Organization's website. It would be good to replace these with an independent source (noting that this comment is addressed in a previous GA review).
 * Images have appropriate licensing and CC tags. Most are own work, and three are photographs taken by Epicgenius.
 * Earwig's Copyvio Detector identifies a 38.3% chance of copyright violation the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission report, 26.5% with IBDB and 25.4% with the Shubert website page on the theatre. I suggest looking at these and rewording if necessary.
 * I see no obvious spelling or grammar errors.

Please ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @simongraham, thanks for taking a look. I've addressed all of the above issues (the copyvio matches are almost all proper names, but I did fix a few common-noun phrases that were too close to the sources). – Epicgenius (talk) 02:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Excellent work. I'll start the assessment now. simongraham (talk) 05:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Assessment
The six good article criteria:
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) 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).
 * 1) It has a neutral point of view.
 * it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * 1) 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) 05:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)