Talk:Mark Hellinger Theatre/GA1

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 10:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

This looks like another well-researched article on a New York theatre by Epicgenius and is therefore likely to be close to Good Article status already. I will start a review very shortly. simongraham (talk) 10:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments
This is a stable and well-written article. 96.5% of authorship is by Epicgenius. It is currently ranked B class and appeared as in the Did You Know column on 7 January 2022.

This article is ready for assessment. simongraham (talk) 10:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is of appropriate length, 4,997 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.
 * There is a substantial number of images that have appropriate licensing and public domain or CC tags. Six are provided by Epicgenius and a further five from Ed Solero,
 * Earwig's Copyvio Detector identifies a 9.9% chance of copyright violation, confirming that there is a low likelihood.
 * There is only one minor grammar error, which I have corrected (there was a double period following one of the instances of Warner Bros).

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) 10:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)