Talk:Charlie Chaplin/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SilkTork *^YES! 14:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'll take a look over the next few days and leave some initial comments. I have had a glance at the article and I am concerned that there appear to be many unsourced paragraphs. If it looks as though there is a significant amount of serious sourcing that needs to be done this may be closed as a quick fail. SilkTork *^YES! 14:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• The Martin Sieff quote in the lead is too long. See Wikipedia:Quotations. Summarise the main points. SilkTork *^YES! 00:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)