This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Albums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum Concerts Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Concerts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of concerts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConcertsWikipedia:WikiProject ConcertsTemplate:WikiProject Concertsconcert Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Rock music Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Progressive Rock Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Progressive Rock, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Progressive rock on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Progressive RockWikipedia:WikiProject Progressive RockTemplate:WikiProject Progressive RockProgressive rock Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Pink Floyd Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pink Floyd, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pink Floyd on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pink FloydWikipedia:WikiProject Pink FloydTemplate:WikiProject Pink FloydPink Floyd Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article was a past project collaboration. To-do list: Fair use Add fair use rationale to all images and sound samples (all except images already labeled free use). Re-size large images around to 300 pixels (all "fair use" images), other than album covers (already done). Articles Expand all articles to at least Start class. Some song stubs can't be expanded and should be redirected to the relevant album article. Use the "Interstellar Overdrive" article as an example when editing a song stub. Expand all of the Floyd's studio album articles to at least GA status. See COTM for monthly collabs. Project building Add WikiProject Pink Floyd banner {{WPFloyd}} to all appropriate Talk pages. Personally invite quality editors working on Pink Floyd articles to join the project. If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list. This article does not yet have a related to do list. If you can think of any ways to improve the article, why not create one?

This review is transcluded from Talk:Theatre Royal Drury Lane 8th September 1974/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Willbb234 (talk · contribs) 19:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing. Willbb234 (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   Fails WP:MOS. Too many quotations in the 'Performance' sub-section. Makes the text hard to read.

@Willbb234: Good point; I've copyedited the section to reduce direct quotations of merely descriptive content (for instance, the article didn't need to quote exact language to convey that a song had a swing rhythm). I've retained some quotations that express a critical judgment that can't be paraphrased into Wikipedia's voice, but these are specifically attributed. It should be more readable now. —BLZ · talk 20:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Brandt Luke Zorn: Ok, thank you. Will review again tomorrow when I have time. Regards, Willbb234 (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Plenty of reliable sources

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Covers all areas in depth

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Stable

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

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

   Fine

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Just the one problem, but should be easily fixed.

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   Quotations reduced and appropriately replaced with suitable text.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   A well-rounded article well verified and well written.