Talk:Hudson Theatre/GA1

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 13:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

This looks like another well-researched article on the theatres of New York by Epicgenius and is again likely to be close to Good Article status. I will start a review soon. simongraham (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments
This is a stable and well-written article. 78.5% of authorship is by Epicgenius with a substantial contribution from Mertbiol. It is currently ranked Sart class and was a DYK on 15 November.


 * The article is of substantial length, 5,537 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.
 * The image in the Infobox needs a caption.
 * I have added one. Epicgenius (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Images have appropriate licensing and public domain or CC tags; many are marked as own work, including a few images submitted by Epicgenius. This is excellent.
 * The imagery is scattered around the document and aligned both right and left, so could be subject to issues with some resolutions as per MOS:IMAGELOCATION. The recommendation is right alignment by default.
 * I've done this. I put a few images on the left to avoid a monotonous image alignment, but I moved them all to the right now. Epicgenius (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean. I too prefer a variation as it is less monotonous but I understand the concern and sometimes we have to allow the functional to beat the aesthetic. simongraham (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Earwig's Copyvio Detector identifies a 18.7% chance of copyright violation with a page on Tony nominations on Playbill. The page does not seem to be a violation. Can you please confirm.
 * I checked, and the match is mainly just a quote from the Tony Awards Administration Committee, as well as the proper names of the committee itself and a production. Epicgenius (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I thought so. simongraham (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "Above the center bay is a segmentally-arched broken pediment with a male head (probably depicting the god Apollo) and a lyre." I am not sure what as "a segmentally-arched broken pediment" is. Is there a way to make that clearer?
 * W 44 St Oct 2021 194.jpg Basically, this is a pediment with two characteristics (it's the center pediment in this image). It is generally shaped like a segmental arch. There is a break in the center of the pediment, so in architectural parlance it's a "broken pediment". This is compared with the pediments over the windows immediately to the left and right, which have segmental arches but are not broken. I have reworded this now. Epicgenius (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That is helpful. I think the prose is easier to understand now. simongraham (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "The orchestra has yellow side-walls with paneled pilasters." I believe sidewalls is a single word.
 * Done. Epicgenius (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "It then served as a network radio studio for CBS from 1934 to 1937 and as a NBC television studio from 1949 to 1960." Should it be "an NBC"?
 * Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I see no other obvious spelling or grammar errors.

Another epic piece of work, and a substantial article. Please ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 10:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I have addressed all of these issues now. Epicgenius (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. I will start my assessment now. simongraham (talk) 21:05, 2 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) 21:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)