Talk:Booth Theatre/GA1

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

Reviewer: AnonymousPurpose (talk · contribs)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

With over 440+ references this article is quite outstanding from it's immense detail, while maintaining a summary like nature and not over expanding.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Quality spelling and grammar.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * With over 440+ references to all reputable and reliable sites, with about 300+ of them I directly checked and confirmed their validity. This article's ability to stay up to date and have quality information is great.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Great ability to stay big picture and only zoom into topics when needed.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Neutrality is straight forward here, there's no visible 3rd party bias being presented.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No wars at all in recent history, or on the talk page.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * All images and media seem to be sourced from the Wikipedia Commons or a reputable site.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Amazing work, I feel you all have done a great job in this to properly make Booth Theatre feel special and documented in it's own way.