Talk:Circus Juventas

Sources

• Spectacle
• "HGA wins 4 of 10 Minnesota architecture Honor Awards", Strib Nov 14, 2002
• Architecture Minnesota vol 29, 2003, p 40-41
• MSP Mag —⁠Collin^{t c} 22:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Circus Juventas/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 05:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 05:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

A preemptive thanks! BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 05:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey Bobamnertiopsis, it may take me a little while to get to it but I'll keep you posted on my progress. — Cirt (talk) 07:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

No worries! I'll be here all week, as they say. Also, I know a lot of the refs are pulled from paywalled archives, so if you need me to pull any quotes to support anything, I'm happy to do it. Thanks again, BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 15:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Bobamnertiopsis, could you please expand the lede intro sect, per WP:LEAD, so it can function as a standalone summary of the entire article's contents? That's the only glaring issue I'm seeing right now, so rather than put this as GA on Hold, thought I'd just ask you here, before we proceed onwards. — Cirt (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Beyond maybe the Music section which I realize is pretty lacking from the lead, are there any other sections or areas you'd recommend expanding upon? BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 18:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Mainly some from Reception, and a bit more from History. — Cirt (talk) 23:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

How's that, Cirt? BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 23:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Much better, I'll get to the rest of the review in a bit. — Cirt (talk) 23:57, 4 October 2014 (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.	Writing style is indeed succinct and concise, perhaps a bit too much so for my tastes, but then again, sometimes I can be too verbose.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	I helped the nominator a bit with WP:LEAD guidelines, and now it looks much better.
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.	Duly cited throughout to appropriate sources.
	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).	Very good use of in-line citations throughout entire article.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Article relies heavily upon secondary sources, which is a good thing.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yes, article covers major aspects from multiple different viewpoints, as well.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Of adequate length to both remain focused on the subject matter at hand while also covering its depth and history quite well.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	It does appear to be written in a neutral tone, yes.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No outstanding stability issues, upon inspection of article edit history and also of talk page history.
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.	One fair use image with appropriate rationale, hosted locally on en.wikipedia. All other images hosted on Wikimedia Commons with quite well done information and standardization, multiple even have WP:OTRS confirmation!
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are most certainly directly relevant to subject matter.
	7. Overall assessment.	Great job overall! — Cirt (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Circus Juventas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.twincities.com/stage/ci_18567010

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Ref for later

Backstage article that could be useful. BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 06:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Circus Juventas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140427010109/http://www.citypages.com/2005-08-03/arts/spotlight-dyrnwych/full/ to http://www.citypages.com/2005-08-03/arts/spotlight-dyrnwych/full/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)