Talk:Embassy Theatre (New York City)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 13:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

This looks like another well-researched New York theatre article from Epicgenius. My experience tells me it is likely to be close to Good Article status so I will start a review shortly. simongraham (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments
This is a stable and well-written article. 99.7% of authorship is by Epicgenius. It is currently ranked C class and appeared in the DYK column on 17 January 2022.

Please can you take a look at these comments and ping me your thoughts. simongraham (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is of appropriate length, 3,512 words of readable prose, plus an infobox.
 * Unlike other theatre articles, there is no referenced list of notable productions. Would it be worth including?
 * This was primarily a movie theater throughout its history and never operated as a Broadway theater. The "notable productions" lists in other articles are based on Broadway shows and special concerts that have happened there. Since the Embassy only showed newsreels and movies, it would be unwieldy to mention all the notable movies that were shown at the theater, as movie screenings don't typically get that much media attention compared to Broadway plays. Epicgenius (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That is a shame. simongraham (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is written in a summary style, consistent with relevant Manuals of Style.
 * Citations seem to be thorough. However, the style of them seems unusual. Footnotes 53 to 56 seem to contain many citations, and 96 is given as an example. I suggest returning to the single citation per footnote; I can see this combining with the list of productions - in the narrative give one relevant citation and move the remainder to the list as appropriate to cover the entries.
 * This is mostly per the guideline WP:CITEBUNDLE, which suggests combining entries that are related, specifially Bundling is also useful if the sources each support a different portion of the preceding text. Epicgenius (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * OK. simongraham (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The quote in the Pittsburgh press is "I have decided that women are more reliable than men". Is it worth including that?
 * I have removed it. Epicgenius (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * References appear to be from reputable sources.
 * Images have appropriate licensing and CC tags. Thank you, Epicgenius, for adding your eight contributions, without which there would be only one illustration, which would make the article all the poorer.
 * You're welcome. Epicgenius (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Earwig's Copyvio Detector identifies a 9.1% chance of copyright violation, a low likelihood.
 * There are no obvious grammar or spelling errors.

This article is ready for assessment. simongraham (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2022 (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 ffocused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
 * 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.

. Well done. You have another Good Article.

Pass simongraham (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)