Talk:Stage works of Paul Goodman/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 15:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. Sorry for the long wait! If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This article meets the GA standard! Congrats to you and anyone else who may have worked on it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Replies

 * Thanks for the review! re: images, it was a small epiphany when I realized that some book jacket (promotional) images were freely licensed. For the Living Theatre portraits, I'm inclined to grandfather them in per Media copyright questions but I also wouldn't contest it if they were put up for deletion. Bavasso is a crop of File:Julie Bavasso 1956.JPG, which has links showing it was a promotional image published without a copyright mark. czar  02:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The Bavasso image looks good. As to the Living Theatre portraits, I'm not going to nominate them for deletion, but I regret to say that they should probably be removed from this article for it to get to GA - I don't like to have that kind of copyright uncertainty for articles at the GA standard. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Done czar  14:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Czar just a few things to fix and then we should be about there! Let me know when you'll be able to address them. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Clarified the above in prose. The major productions list is reasonably complete, having worked from the academic bibliography of Goodman (Nicely 1979). Bovasso quit after "a few" performances so I didn't see fit to specify that or the lover's name.
 * Also I was thinking about taking this article to FAC, seeing as it is the most complete treatment written on the topic. Any further suggestions? czar  03:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have specific suggestions to take it to FAC, though I'm sure there will be changes needed. The level of scrutiny there, as you know, is significantly higher, but I'm sure you can get this article through the process. It's in very good shape overall. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)