Talk:New Amsterdam Theatre/GA1

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 23:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

This looks like yet another excellent article on the theatres of New York by Epicgenius and is therefore likely to be close to Good Article status already. I will start a review shortly. simongraham (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments
This is a stable and well-written article. 95.7% of authorship is by Epicgenius. It is currently ranked B class and a DYK nominee.


 * The article is of appropriate length, 6,732 words of readable prose, plus a 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 either CC or public domain tags.
 * Earwig's Copyvio Detector identifies a 34.7% chance of copyright violation with the LPC citation (Pearson, 1979). Suggest looking at this and rewording if necessary.
 * Consider rephrasing "The theater's current production since 2014 is Aladdin." to "The theater's production since 2014 has been Aladdin."
 * Rephrase "Also common were Shakespeare productions, as well as productions based around "kiddie fare" such as Mother Goose and Humpty Dumpty." to remove the proximate repetition of "productions".
 * I see no other obvious spelling or grammar errors.

Please ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 23:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @simongraham, thanks for taking a look. I have addressed all the issues you brought up. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I see you have also added another reference but it has no citations. Can you explain please? simongraham (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Basically, it is a further reading, since I think all the relevant info in the article is also described in the book. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest adding a "Further reading" section so that is clear, but that is not a GA criteria so I will start the assessment anyway. simongraham (talk) 09:06, 23 November 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) 09:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)