Talk:Theatre Royal Drury Lane 8th September 1974/GA1

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

Reviewer: Willbb234 (talk · contribs) 19:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Reviewing. Willbb234 (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Fails WP:MOS. Too many quotations in the 'Performance' sub-section. Makes the text hard to read.
 * Good point; I've copyedited the section to reduce direct quotations of merely descriptive content (for instance, the article didn't need to quote exact language to convey that a song had a swing rhythm). I've retained some quotations that express a critical judgment that can't be paraphrased into Wikipedia's voice, but these are specifically attributed. It should be more readable now. —BLZ · talk 20:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you. Will review again tomorrow when I have time. Regards, Willbb234 (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Plenty of reliable sources
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Covers all areas in depth
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Stable
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Fine
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Just the one problem, but should be easily fixed.
 * Just the one problem, but should be easily fixed.