Talk:Vivian Beaumont Theater/GA1

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

Reviewer: Gazozlu (talk · contribs) 14:06, 22 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:
 * ok
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * ok
 * 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:
 * Ok
 * 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:
 * Mostly New York Times and Playbill which is ok.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * No original research.
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * No copyright violations identified.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * Quite broad and covering all relevant aspects sufficiently.
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * Neutral
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * Stable
 * 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:
 * Good
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Floorplan images or other images that illustrate the Vivian_Beaumont_Theater section, the Form and facade section in particular.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Some questions:
 * Other design features section can use a better explanation, but I wikilinked it.
 * Other design features section can use a better explanation, but I wikilinked it.


 * In this article there is alot of listing going on within the prose. In this case there are whole paragraphs just listing performances and their dates. Perhaps it would be good here as well to reduce the size or list them in a more compact way as the prose does not add much information or readability in this case.


 * Closing Comments This article is generally good. For me it was just a bit uncomfortable in parts of the article while reading it to go through a list of name after name after name of performance over and over again while having to read the whole article. Perhaps something can be done to mitigate this in some way but in retrospect, also considering the other article review where we talked about the same situation, it is not a problem big enough to keep it from Good Article status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazozlu (talk • contribs) 21:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)