Talk:Booth Theatre/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AnonymousPurpose (talk · contribs)

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

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

---

With over 440+ references this article is quite outstanding from it's immense detail, while maintaining a summary like nature and not over expanding.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Quality spelling and grammar.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   With over 440+ references to all reputable and reliable sites, with about 300+ of them I directly checked and confirmed their validity. This article's ability to stay up to date and have quality information is great.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Great ability to stay big picture and only zoom into topics when needed.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Neutrality is straight forward here, there's no visible 3rd party bias being presented.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No wars at all in recent history, or on the talk page.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All images and media seem to be sourced from the Wikipedia Commons or a reputable site.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Amazing work, I feel you all have done a great job in this to properly make Booth Theatre feel special and documented in it's own way.