Talk:Booth Theatre/GA2

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: MaxnaCarta (talk · contribs) 01:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is clear, concise, succinct. Spelling is accurate, grammar also correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Good compliance with MOS. Structure is well done, with correct use of headings. Layout looks professional and adds to article readability. Lead properly summarises the article content, and I do not see anything of significance in the article body not summarised appropriately in the lead.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Good compliance.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Excellent use of citations throughout the article, with a consistent referencing style. Very strong reference list with credible sources listed. Citations include links, all of which are live.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Article is well referenced. Material facts are cited with reliable sources. Good source to text integrity is evident from the spot checks conducted. EG, I randomly chose some facts such as the $10,000 prize referenced at 93/94. This fact is directly corroborated by the precise source and page shown.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Impressive copyvio report. User has translated sources well into Wikivoice. Spotchecks of source comparison indicate most word for word highlights are just the names of plays and performances.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Nothing to add here, article is broad in coverage and appropriately detailed.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article size appears WP:TOOBIG, however the prose is not excessive. Size is coming from extensive reference list and images. Word length not too long. Detail is appropriate.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Good example of a neutral article. Opinions not stated as facts, and descriptions of the subject remain impartial. Rather than describing the building as "beautiful" we see a description of the building with commentary from reliable sources. See facade section for an excellent example.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	editing history is stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are appropriately CC licensed or in the public domain. No fair use images included.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Yes, the image of the auditorium has a longer than usual caption, but overall I do not see it as a barrier to passing.
	7. Overall assessment.	Outstanding work Epicgenius, I have made the small number of corrections, and this is another superb article. Well done.

• Epicgenius

Comments

Formatting

• Some duplicate links. Please check these. EG Sgraffito is linked in two immediately consecutive paragraphs.

Y done, rest of duplicate links are done once after the lead per MOS

• Wikilinks generally look good - relevant to the text and not common words.
• Auditorium image caption is a little long. Not a barrier to passing GA, but something to consider in future improvements.
• Some references ie 357 are missing the publish date, but it does not appear on the source so okay to exclude.

Prose

• Also, readability of "The Booth Theatre is on 224 West 45th Street, on the north sidewalk between Eighth Avenue and Seventh Avenue, near Times Square in the Theater District of Midtown Manhattan in New York City" seems clunky. That much detail needed?

Y - I think this is fine after some consideration. There is not really another way to say the same thing, and I'm okay with the detail here.

• Quoin may be too technical for the average reader? It is linked, but could there be a sentence explaining this term? Or link sufficient?

Y - defining this in article not necessary. Hovering over the link shows this is a masonry block.

• Box office record "currently" held by boys in the band, this must be changed as "currently" not appropriate - can become outdated.

- fixed Y

• Word "recent" appears, but it is a quote so appropriate to keep.

Spot check

• REF52:OK
• REF93:OK
• REF94:OK
• REF237:OK
• REF410:OK

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.