Talk:Ed Sullivan Theater/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 08:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like another well-researched article on New York theatres by Epicgenius and so is likely to be close to Good Article status without much work. I will start my review soon. simongraham (talk) 08:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

This is a stable and well-written article. 90.8% of authorship is by Epicgenius. It is currently ranked B class.

The article is of appropriate length, 5,719 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 and extensive, with 285 listed.
Please confirm that phish.net is reputable.
- That appears to have been the band's own website. Nevertheless, I have replaced it with a news article. Epicgenius (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Other references appear to be from reputable sources.
Images have appropriate licensing and CC tags.
Earwig's Copyvio Detector identifies a 17.4% chance of copyright violation with what looks like a blog and 11.5% with the theatre's website.
The lead repeats that Stephen Colbert is there now. Is this necessary?
- I have reduced the repetition now. Epicgenius (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should "teletape" be capitalised?
- It was a proper name, "Teletape Studios", which I have made clear now. Epicgenius (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The office section to the east is six bays wide and 13 stories high, with the windows on each stories being grouped in pairs" I believe "stories" should be singular.
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see no other obvious spelling or grammar errors.

@Epicgenius: Congratulations of another well-written piece of work. Please ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 08:58, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Simongraham: Thanks for the comments. I have now addressed all the comments you brought up. Epicgenius (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: Great work. I will complete the review now. simongraham (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2021 (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) 00:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]