Talk:Studio 54/GA1

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

Reviewer: Gazozlu (talk · contribs) 14:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * Well written.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * Many good reliable sources.
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * Although there is a lot of detail that may or may not be removed, the detail is not inappropriate however it renders the article is quite long.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * Stable except for improvements by nominator.
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Very comprehensive article over all, maybe some points to improve such as:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Very comprehensive article over all, maybe some points to improve such as:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Very comprehensive article over all, maybe some points to improve such as:


 * Use as a studio: The fight that is referred to, better to specify more that it was a professional boxing fight or something.


 * Considering how much is written about the history, it might be good to bring the section titled "Theater spaces" to the top before "early history" and the other history sections.


 * Comment: The above comments are not the reason that it does not pass yet, they are just suggestions. The only reason why it does not pass yet is because the lead does not adequately summarise the entirety of the article. For example it leaves out legacy and description of the spaces. It mainly talks about the history of the management and establishments that have been in the building, that part could be summarised more.
 * Thanks for the review. I've started rewording the lead, and I clarified what the fight was. I'll work on rewording the article soon so the "Theater spaces" section can be moved to the top of the article. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The rewording of the lead section to more clearly portray the cultural importance of the theatre and its "legacy" adequately complete the introduction in my view. Also the other two fixes are good. Gazozlu (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)