Talk:Broadhurst Theatre/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 13:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

This looks like another well-researched article on the theatres of New York by Epicgenius and is therefore, if my previous experience is to go by, likely to be close to Good Article status already. I will start a review soon. simongraham (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Comments

This is a stable and well-written article. 96.0% of authorship is by Epicgenius. It is currently ranked B class and was on DYK on 10 February 2022.

• The article is of appropriate length, 4,510 words of readable prose, plus a referenced list of notable productions and an infobox.
• The lead is of appropriate length.
• 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.
• Spot checks confirm that sources are live and support the arguments in the document.
• Images have appropriate licensing and public domain or CC tags.
• Earwig's Copyvio Detector identifies a 26.5% chance of copyright violation with a page on Playbill.
• I see no obvious spelling or grammar errors.
• Text seems to be neutral and shows a balanced global perspective.
• There is no evidence of edit wars.

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.

2. 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.

3. 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).

4. It has a neutral point of view.

   it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

5. It is stable.

   it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

6. 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) 01:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.