Talk:Mark Hellinger Theatre/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 10:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

This looks like another well-researched article on a New York theatre by Epicgenius and is therefore likely to be close to Good Article status already. I will start a review very shortly. simongraham (talk) 10:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments

This is a stable and well-written article. 96.5% of authorship is by Epicgenius. It is currently ranked B class and appeared as in the Did You Know column on 7 January 2022.

• The article is of appropriate length, 4,997 words of readable prose, plus a referenced list of notable productions and an infobox.
• 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.
• There is a substantial number of images that have appropriate licensing and public domain or CC tags. Six are provided by Epicgenius and a further five from Ed Solero,
• Earwig's Copyvio Detector identifies a 9.9% chance of copyright violation, confirming that there is a low likelihood.
• There is only one minor grammar error, which I have corrected (there was a double period following one of the instances of Warner Bros).

This article is ready for assessment. simongraham (talk) 10:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

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) 10:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)