Talk:The Indian Princess (play)

The Indian Princess (play) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: May 3, 2013. (Reviewed version).

The Indian Princess (play) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment. Further details were available on the "Education Program:CUNY, Brooklyn College/Theater History from 1642 (Spring 2013)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

A fact from The Indian Princess (play) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 April 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that James Nelson Barker's play The Indian Princess is largely responsible for the modern version of the Pocahontas story?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Indian Princess (play).

Wikipedia

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Indian Princess (play)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: EmilyBlume (talk · contribs) 17:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Review

This article is clearly written and organized very well. It is broken up into clear sections and leads you in with an appropriate summary. The subject matter is presented with a neutral point of view and provides enough information without being overly specific. The wiki links are used in the correct way and are informative, as well as the sources that prove to be reliable. No copyright violations are evident and the image applied is interesting. I did notice a couple of spelling errors, but overall this is a very well written article! It should be passed as a Good Article. EmilyBlume (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary review by Yunshui

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Prose is readable, grammatically correct, largely academic in tone and deals will with imprecise source data. No easily detectable copyvios.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
MOS compliant. Lead summarises principle aspects of topic, structure meets the layout guidelines, wording has been corrected to avoid imprecise or vague terminology, plot section trimmed to appropriate length (in-universe style is adequately balanced by rest of article).
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:
Reference list provided in accordance with footnote guidelines (Harvard formatting).

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
Sources cited are largely inaccessible to me, so I can't vouch that they verify the information. However, all of them certainly exist, and appear to be reliable secondary or tertiary sources (largely academic publications). Assuming good faith, pass on this criterion.

C. No original research:
Arguments and conclusions are cited sourced directly to sources, no OR or synthesis detected.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Covers not only the content of the play, but also its historical significance, critical analysis and performance history.

B. Focused:
Summary style used, "See also" links provided for extended reading, remains on-topic throughout.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Various critical and historical views on the play are represented, without bias towards their validity.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Largely the work of a single editor, no edit-wars or disputed content.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Two images, both correctly licenced as public domain.

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Both images are relevant to the topic, and are appropriately captioned and positioned.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Looks good - approved for GA status.