Talk:Charles Heidsieck/GA1

GA Reassessment
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.''

This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * This is practically a one-source article, which is something that should be avoided as far as possible. Relying on only one source can lead to problems with balanced representation.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * This is where the article fails most profoundly. It is written from a US-perspective, though as far as I understand, the man lived most of his life in France. There is hardly anything on his life before travelling to America, or after returning. There is for instance nothing on his death or burial. I know these issues were brought up at the original GA review, but as it stands now it simply does not fulfil this GA criterion.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * The article uses fair use images excessively. If the book and movie do not have their own articles, they are probably not independently notable, and therefore not culturally significant in relation to the article. In any case, they could easily have been mentioned in prose rather than represented visually.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Lampman (talk) 12:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Lampman (talk) 12:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I note that item #3 could be fixed with a minor change to the article title and the lead section. This seems to be less of a bio article and more of an article about the subject's activities in the United States. I also note that the primary contributor has no problem with this article being downgraded from GA status.
 * Also, the reviewer above is way off base with regard to #6. The images appropriately illustrate the content certainly wherever it's possible to do so, in line with the criterion. Subjective or questionable opinions should be kept out of reviews such as this. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't shoot the messenger, that's Wikipedia's opinion, not mine. The non-free content guidelines clearly label as unacceptable "A magazine or book cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover". Anyway, since you have no objection to the delisting, and no intention of improving the article, I will delist it. Lampman (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)