Talk:Charlie Chaplin/GA1

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

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:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 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 Quotations. Summarise the main points.  SilkTork  *YES! 00:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Images passed GA criteria, though layout is untidy from Creative control down. See MOS:IMAGES, and reorganise - perhaps removing a few.  SilkTork  *YES! 01:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Article doesn't meet requirements of WP:Lead and Embedded list. The lead should stand alone as an overview of Chaplin's life. He was a significant person, and the article covers a lot of ground that isn't reflected in the lead. There's also a tendency for the later sections to become lists rather than prose.  SilkTork  *YES! 01:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Article doesn't have any edit wars, but has experienced a high level of Ip vandalism. I have now protected it.  SilkTork  *YES! 01:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Article seems fairly broad, though some more coverage of his studio and also United Artists, perhaps in a dedicated section, might be useful.  SilkTork  *YES! 01:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The Relationships section seems quite long and detailed compared to other sections in the article. That could be trimmed to make it more proportionate to other more significant aspects of his life and career.  SilkTork  *YES! 01:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Prose quality is variable and needs attention.  SilkTork  *YES!


 * The main problem with the article is that there is much that is unsourced. The article has been tagged as needing sourcing since May 2009 - as such it should not have been nominated for GA without that issue being addressed. An article cannot be passed as GA with clean up tags on it.  SilkTork  *YES! 01:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

On hold
There are a few issues, the main one is the sourcing. Given Chaplin's importance, there are many books on him, and GoogleBooks gives access to quite a few. Most of the contents of this article can be sourced quite easily. That which can't, should be removed. I'll put this on hold for seven days to allow people time to work on the sourcing. If there has been progress in the seven days we can look into extending the review. Any questions please ping my talkpage.  SilkTork  *YES! 01:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Fail
Despite widespread notifying (10 contributors and 7 projects) only one person has come forward to deal with the issues on the article. With thanks to John for what he has done; however, there are too many issues to be dealt with for this article to have a chance of meeting GA criteria in a reasonable time frame with so little response from editors. As this is such a high profile and important article I might keep it on my watchlist and try to help out when I get time. But for the moment it is a fail.  SilkTork  *YES! 01:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)