Talk:Eugene O'Neill Theatre/GA1

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 11:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

This looks like another well-researched 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) 11:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments
This is a stable and well-written article. 98.0% of authorship is by Epicgenius. It is currently ranked B class and appeared as in the Did You Know column on 11 January 2022.

This article is ready for assessment. simongraham (talk) 11:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is of appropriate length, 4,058 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 reputable sources.
 * Images have appropriate licensing and public domain or CC tags. Thank you, Epicgenius, for adding your two contributions to the selection.
 * Earwig's Copyvio Detector identifies a 28.1% chance of copyright violation, confirming that there is a low likelihood. The highest correlation is with IBDB, which is likely due to both containing lists of productions.
 * There are no obvious grammar or spelling errors.

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. You have another article that meets the Good Article criteria.

Pass simongraham (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)