Talk:Ed Sullivan Theater/GA1

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

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

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)

Comments
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * "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)
 * I see no other obvious spelling or grammar errors.

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)
 * Thanks for the comments. I have now addressed all the comments you brought up. Epicgenius (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Great work. I will complete the review now. simongraham (talk) 00:02, 13 December 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) 00:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)