Talk:Charlie Chaplin/GA2

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

Reviewer: Cassianto (talk · contribs) 18:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I will review this nomination. -- Cassianto Talk   18:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments
I've now had a quick read through of this excellent article and I've glanced at the references, but not checked them at all. On this basis, my impression is that this article is probably at GA-level and perhaps well on the way to being at FA, but I will not be assessing it against WP:FAC, only against the requirements of WP:WIAGA. I will now start to work my way through the article in a bit more depth, beginning at the Biography section and finishing with the Lead. This will probably take a few days (if not a week thanks to real life) so please bear with me. -- Cassianto Talk   18:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cass. For all intents and purposes, and I should be considered co-nominators. Please feel free to make any corrections or copy edits as you read through. -- Loeba  (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I added Susie to the GA banner on the talk page. --  Cassianto Talk   20:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Early years (1889–1913)
 * "...although it is believed to have been a Mr Hawkes." -- Do we know who believed this?
 * Specified that it was Hannah's claim. -- Loeba (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "At the time of his birth, Chaplin's parents were both entertainers in the music hall tradition." →At the time of his birth, Chaplin's parents were both music hall entertainers."
 * Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "...worked as a popular singer." -- not sure you work as a popular singer, more work as a singer and with it comes popularity? →"was a popular singer"?
 * Done -- Loeba (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "...by music hall entertainer Leo Dryden." Definite article required IMO.
 * Done -- Loeba (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "His early years were spent with his mother and brother in the London..." -- Chaplin I trust, and not Robinson?
 * Ha, fixed -- Loeba (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "As the situation deteriorated, Chaplin was sent to a workhouse when seven years old." →"As the situation deteriorated, Chaplin was sent to a workhouse when he was seven years old.
 * Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Before you'd posted your comments, Cass, I'd already fixed this to "at seven years old". -- Loeba (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think "young Chaplin" is a bit obvious. I would drop "young" as it is a bit redundant.
 * Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Noun plus -ing of " young Chaplin had started performing on stage." →"Chaplin had started to perform on stage."
 * Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "He recalled that his first appearance came at five years old, when he took over from Hannah one night in Aldershot." →"He made his first appearance on the amateur stage when he was five years old, when he took over from Hannah during a performance in Aldershot."? -- We need to differentiate between amateur and professional for his first appearance IMO.
 * We decided it was necessary to write "Chaplin recalled", since there has been some question over how accurate he was (one biographer even claims he made it up!) So I'd like to retain that. I've tweaked the sentence to "He recalled making his first amateur appearance at five years old"...is that a bit wordy/awkward?
 * Perfect. It was the "amateur" I wanted to get in there. --  Cassianto Talk   21:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "...with whom he toured the English music halls throughout 1899 and 1900."
 * Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Doesn't that kind of imply that he toured every single music hall? -- Loeba (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I suspect not (there were hundreds of them in Victorian London...a bit like Tesco Extra! ;) How about "various"? -- Cassianto Talk   21:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think "various" may be redundant...do you not think "toured English music halls" is okay as it is? People say "toured theatres", "toured venues"... -- Loeba (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can't see a major problem with it. Just clarify, are we talking national music halls, or London halls? --   Cassianto Talk   22:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We say "16-years-old" here but "seven years old", "six months old", "five years old" earlier on. Hyphens should be consistent. I forget if they are needed below ten, so ignore this if I'm wrong.
 * Another one I'd already fixed ;) -- Loeba (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "Chaplin quickly began work in another role, touring with his brother – who was also pursuing an acting career – in a comedy sketch called Repairs." -- We speak of the "role" but never actually get to hear what it is. Either a copy edit is required or a bit more digging is needed to find this out.
 * Changed to "Chaplin quickly began work with a new company" -- Loeba (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Some would consider "prestigious" a bit peacocky. Not me, because this was Fred Karno, but it's up to you.
 * I think it's important that we identify that Karno's was a very prestigious company. Most readers won't know this, so would think it was "just another role". -- Loeba (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Me too. I agreed with this already.  (FAC may want evidence as to why it was "prestigious", just to give you a heads up).--  Cassianto Talk   21:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "Karno was initially wary, thinking Chaplin a "pale, puny, sullen-looking youngster" who "looked much too shy to do any good in the theatre." " If he thought it, why do we use inverts? If he said it then that's different.
 * Well he said it much later, telling an interviewer the thoughts he had at the time....what do you think is the best way of dealing with this? -- Loeba (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "and considered Chaplin to be..." Would be my choice of wording here.-- Cassianto Talk   21:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That works, done -- Loeba (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Entering films (1914–1917)
 * "Chaplin thought the Keystone comedies "a crude mélange of rough and rumble"," --Thought? If so, who said like the inverts suggest?
 * Exactly the same issue as the Karno quote above. It from his autobiography... -- Loeba (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Why the capital in "Besides" when we appear to be mid-way through a sentence?
 * See above, because it's a direct quote from the book...maybe it's okay to decapitalise it though? -- Loeba (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "..."a crude mélange of rough and rumble", but liked the idea of working in films and justified, "Besides, it would mean a new life." -- Actually, I think the inverts over-complicate things here a bit. The first, should be quoted with the "thought" adjusted to a "said", but the others would work just as well without the inverts.
 * Comment probably doesn't apply anymore, now that I've explained it is a direct quote? -- Loeba (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "He met with the company, and signed a $150-per-week contract in September 1913. Chaplin arrived in Los Angeles, home of the Keystone studio, in early December 1913." -- If he thought lowly of Keystone, why the move?
 * It's explained just above: he liked the idea of working in films, and thought it would make an exciting change ("it would mean a new life").
 * "learn the processes of filmmaking. Making a Living marked his film debut" -- As a film maker or actor?
 * Clarified -- Loeba (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "Making a Living marked his film debut, released 2 February 1914." Could do with a conjunction instead of a comma, as the current form makes it a bit sudden.
 * Done -- Loeba (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "For his second appearance in front of the cameras..."
 * Done -- Loeba (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "...shot later but released two days earlier." -- How is that possible? I'm all for time travel, but...
 * Haha, clarified -- Loeba (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "In San Francisco he recruited a leading lady – Edna Purviance. She went on to appear in 35 films with Chaplin over eight years." -- "In San Francisco he recruited a leading lady – Edna Purviance who went on to appear in 35 films with Chaplin over eight years" maybe?
 * Yep, done -- Loeba (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If the quote "We can afford to pay Mr Chaplin this large sum annually because the public wants Chaplin and will pay for him" was from an American, then I highly doubt they would have omitted the full stop after "Mr".
 * Good catch, done -- Loeba (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * First National (1918–1922)
 * "Frustrated with their lack of concern for quality and worried about rumours of a possible merger between the company and Famous Players-Lasky..." →"Frustrated with their lack of concern for quality and worried about the rumours of a possible merger with Famous Players-Lasky..." possibly? Also, I'm worried that where this sentence comes from may be a tad on the long side.
 * "The 17-year-old..." -- How did we resolve the hyphen issue earlier?
 * Hyphens need to be used when we're saying something like "17-year-old actress", because it's a description of the noun (see WP:HYPHEN #3, bullet point 3). It's for statements like "at 9 years old" that hyphens aren't needed. -- Loeba (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, a quirk of the English language or a potential, personal error for which I am now relegated to the corner of the room with my dunces cap on. I'm going with the former if you don't mind! :) --  Cassianto Talk   19:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "Soon after, this pregnancy..." Were there others then?
 * Changed to 'the pregnancy' as this was the first.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * "Losing a child seems to have influenced Chaplin's work..." -- the start of this sounds a bit POV-y, unless it can be proved who thought this.
 * Is "Losing a child is thought to have influenced Chaplin's work" better? It's something most biographers mention (often in vague phrases like that, in fact) so is difficult to attribute. -- Loeba (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We might still get challenged on who thought this. I'm torn between the two, so I will let you choose.  --  Cassianto Talk   19:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "...Chaplin also wished to "do something more" " -- Unnecessary quote which adds nothing IMO.
 * Quote marks removed -- Loeba (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * " four-year-old"
 * See above -- Loeba (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Still a quirk ;) -- Cassianto Talk   19:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "The Kid was in production for nine months, until May 1920. At 68 minutes, it was Chaplin's longest picture to date." →"The Kid was in production for nine months, until May 1920 and at 68 minutes, was Chaplin's longest picture to date" rolls off the tongue much more nicely.
 * Done.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * Not entirely convinced that the 90-year jump to explain The Kid as a great film today is entirely appropriate in an article which has up until now, stuck so religiously to chronological order. Could we move this to the legacy section, or add it to an explanatory note?
 * Deleted this passage; we mention all six of the films that have been added to the National Film Registry in the Awards and recognition section. I personally think that moving the quote there is not a good idea, as then we would pretty much have to provide LOC's quotes about the other five films as well. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * How about adding it to a footnote? -- Cassianto Talk   23:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a good idea, but should we then add similar footnotes for the other films as well? I'll get back to this tomorrow (unless someone beats me to it), need some sleep now :)TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * Still a little unsure what to do with this – if I add it to a footnote, then I feel that we should also add similar footnotes for the five other films as otherwise we'd be singling out The Kid.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * "Following its September 1921 release, Chaplin..." -- Pronoun here seeing as we speak of only him in the previous sentence.
 * Done.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3


 * Silent features (1923–1938)
 * "The public, however, seemed to have little interest in a Chaplin film without Chaplin..." -- Is there a way of avoiding the repetition of his name? Suggest: "The public, however, seemed to have little interest in a film without Chaplin"? Or, "The public, however, seemed to have little interest in a Chaplin film without him as a star" or similar.
 * Tweaked to "without his presence" -- Loeba (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice! -- Cassianto Talk   19:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "an epic comedy out of grim subject matter." --Who said this?
 * Attributed -- Loeba (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "With Georgia Hale his new leading lady,..." -- Either "With Georgia Hale as his new leading lady,..." Or "With Georgia Hale, his new leading lady,..." but not as it is currently IMO.
 * Went with the former -- Loeba (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "The last scene was not shot until May 1925, after 15 months. -- 15 months of what, filming?
 * Clarified -- Loeba (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "The comedy contains some of Chaplin's most famous gags, such as the Tramp eating his shoe and the "Dance of the Rolls",[151] and the critic Geoffrey Macnab has called it "the quintessential Chaplin film." -- Not sure about the ending here; suggest "The comedy contains some of Chaplin's most famous gags, such as the Tramp eating his shoe and the "Dance of the Rolls". The critic Geoffrey Macnab called it "the quintessential Chaplin film".
 * I didn't want two stubby sentences in a row, so merged Macnab's quote with with the comment about Chaplin wanting to be remembered for it. That okay, or do you not think it's appropriate to link them? -- Loeba  (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe swapping the conjunction, from "and the critic" to "with the critic" maybe? -- Cassianto Talk   19:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * " It is often referred to as Chaplin's finest accomplishment" -- By who?
 * This general summary statement is supported by the BFI source -, "City Lights (1931), the story of the Tramp's love for a blind flower-girl, is often rated his greatest work". So does that make this okay? -- Loeba (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Could we attribute the BFI? -- Cassianto Talk   19:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Done -- Loeba (talk) 14:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 21-year-old -- hyphens
 * Same as above -- Loeba (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "...and the pair began a happy relationship." -- Redundent "happy". Surely all relationships are happy to start with aren't they? ...although Mrs Cassianto may beg to differ ;)
 * Not for Chaplin, ha, he didn't want to be in a relationship with either of his last two wives! That's why the distinction is made here. I've changed it to "successful", how's that? -- Loeba (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Good. -- Cassianto Talk   19:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "Spoken dialogue" -- Is there any other kind?
 * Silent films often include the dialogue on title cards (including Chaplin's films - he didn't like to go overkill with dialogue, but would occasionally give full quotes that the characters are saying). We can't really change this to "prepared to use sound", because he does use sound in Modern Times (just not for dialogue). -- Loeba (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course they do. That is why you are more of a film buff than I! --  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   19:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Controversies and fading popularity (1939–1952)
 * "Chaplin, then 54, had been introduced to Oona by a film agent seven months earlier. In his autobiography, Chaplin described their meeting as "the happiest event of my life". Either Chaplin was after more bookings by describing his and the film agents meeting as "the happiest event of my life", or he was talking of Oona after all. I suspect the latter.
 * Fixed -- Loeba (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Watch consistency here; first we call her "Oona", then we refer to her as "O'Neill".
 * Going with "O'Neill" since his other wives are all referred to by maiden name. -- Loeba (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "Chaplin again vocalised his political views in Monsieur Verdoux, criticising capitalism and arguing that the world encourages mass killing through wars and weapons of mass-destruction, and the film met with controversy when it was released in April 1947." -- Odd that we should describe the film so nicely and finish hurriedly with a bolted on conjunction to describe its controversy. I would end the sentence at "destruction" and begin another explaining the controversy.
 * Hmm, I sort of feel like it's necessary to link the statements, so its clear that his politicising led to the controversy? Or is it perfectly clear without the direct link? -- Loeba (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, how about: "Chaplin again vocalised his political views in Monsieur Verdoux, and criticised capitalism and argued that the world encouraged mass killing through wars and weapons of mass-destruction, an approach which was met with controversy when the film was released in April 1947"? (Note I have altered it to past tense here, but either I guess would be ok. Up to you, these are only suggestions. :) -- Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   20:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "...and there were calls for people to boycott the film." -- Who called?
 * Louvish just writes "and moves were made to boycott the movie in several states." He gives one example from the 'Theater Owners of Ohio', but I'm wary of stating it was all from theater owners in case it's wrong. The other source is one Susie added and I can't access it - maybe she will be able to check if that gives more specific info? -- Loeba (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "...and early in 1947, an official investigation was opened under the premise that Chaplin was a potential threat to national security." -- We end here with no citation.
 * It's covered in the first cite of the note, but I've duplicated the cite anyway. -- Loeba (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "the two greatest comedians of silent pictures" -- Whose line?
 * I actually considered paraphrasing this quote recently, now done. -- Loeba (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * European years (1953–1977)
 * "Chaplin included several of his recent experiences in the screenplay, making himself an exiled king who seeks asylum in New York, and casting his son, Michael, to play a boy whose parents are targeted by the FBI." -- Were the recent experiences the fact that he was an exiled king who sought asylum in New York and then cast his on-screen son in a role in a film, before being targeted by the FBI? Or is one connected to a role within the film and the other a fact at the casting stage in real life? If it is the latter then  "Chaplin included several of his recent experiences in the screenplay" is a bit ambiguous and would suggest that the two examples that follow are all connected to the opening claim. Sorry, I have tried to explain the best I can.  Also, if we are to use "casting his son" may I suggest the past tense instead here?
 * I've had a go at rewording this - is it clearer now? -- Loeba (talk) 14:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "In a review, playwright John Osborne..." -- prefer the definite article here.
 * Done.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * "...was found buried in a field in the nearby village of Noville. It was re-buried in..." -- close repetition of "buried"; suggest "re-interred" maybe upon the second mention?
 * DoneTrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3


 * Filmmaking
 * Generally fine, but I'm a bit upset that our old friend Dan Leno hasn't got a mention as a Chaplin influence. In fact, all of my idols get a mention in this, strangely in the order in which I am taking them to FAC! Other Leno/Chaplin nods are here, I don't know how reliable this is but this, Leno's book (which I have).  Dan would have been big business at Drury Lane when Chaplin was in the audience as Joe nobody I would have thought.
 * I think I'm going to bow out for the night now (so much time spent on wikipedia this week, I'm not spending my friday night here as well, haha) but I just wanted to quickly comment on this. Leno isn't generally mentioned as a specific influence in Chaplin bios (other than the Weissman one, which one of your links is related to). In his autobio, Chaplin says, "Dan Leno, I suppose, was the greatest English comedian since the legendary Grimaldi. Although I never saw Leno in his prime, to me he was more of a character actor than comedian. His whimsical character delineations of London's lower classes were human and endearing, so mother told me." This kind of suggests he respected him but didn't consider him a particular influence...but then, Chaplin is somewhat notorious for downplaying anything that could take away from his own "ingenuity". Susie, what do you think? I suppose it wouldn't hurt to slip in Leno's name (with Weissman as a source). -- Loeba (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries I have to go and read stories to my little ones now, so I'm retiring for the night too. I have thoroughly enjoyed this review so far!Leno's biographer does make mention of it, but then he would be biased wouldn't he.  Still,  Chaplin certainly got the Tramp look from somewhere. I wonder where that was? Lol --  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   20:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Now I feel like such a bore for being online on a Friday night :D I don't remember ever reading about Chaplin being strongly influenced by Dan Leno – however, I haven't got his autobiography here to check, he does mention some music hall artists there I think. However, given that the two influences that we do mention –Karno and Linder– are named in pretty much all Chaplin bios, but Leno only in Weissman, maybe we should just stick with them?TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * OK, if that's how you feel then that is fine by me. I do remember Barry Anthony relaying the story of a young Chaplin paying an incredibly huge amount of money for a scruffy picture of Dan in music hall costume in a gallery near to London bridge. That kind of extravagance makes me think further that Chaplin adored Leno. Perhaps he did and perhaps he semi-styled the Tramp on Leno's on-stage attire.  Who knows?! Perhaps he just didn't want to admit it. --  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   20:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I think I was a bit too tired on Friday night, I've looked at this again today, and now definitely think that Leno was an influence – let's add a little bit about him.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * Oh good :) Loeba, is that OK with you? -- Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   01:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not something I think we should give too much attention to, since most biographers don't, but I will slip his name in. ;) -- Loeba (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "Simon Louvish writes that the company was his "training ground",[327] and it was here that he learnt to vary the pace of his comedy..." The first pronoun should be replaced with Chaplin IMO as it sounds like Louvish is talking about himself.
 * Done -- Loeba (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "...who also used elements of absurdity that would become familiar in Chaplin gags." -- Chaplin's gags?
 * Done -- Loeba (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "Chaplin drew upon the work of French comedian Max Linder..." -- Definite article here.
 * Done -- Loeba (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "Chaplin never spoke more than cursorily about his filmmaking methods, claiming such a thing would be tantamount to a magician spoiling his own illusion." -- Was the last part of this a quote?
 * Nope, it's paraphrased. Chaplin's comment was "if people know how it's done, all the magic goes." -- Loeba (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "Even in his later years, Robinson writes that work continued "to take precedence over everything and everyone else". -- Whose later years, Robinson's?
 * Fixed -- Loeba (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I do consider "Due to" as being American English. See here.
 * Haha, I found a "due to" you had accidentally slipped in at Little Tich, now you've found one that slipped in here. Fixed
 * "He often relied on help..." -- Noun to start here.
 * Done -- Loeba (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Are we sure Sydney Chaplin hasn't already been linked somewhere earlier?
 * Yep he was, unlinked -- Loeba (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * " leading Robinson and Louvish see him as a ..." -- " leading Robinson and Louvish to see him as a"
 * Whoops! Fixed -- Loeba (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Legacy
 * I absolutely adore the Tramp picture. Some would say (including me) that it might even be worthy of being the lede thanks to its iconic presence.  Shame about the amputation of his right elbow, but it is simply wonderful nevertheless. Not a serious suggestion of course, just putting it out there as an opinion.
 * It is wonderful, but I think it's appropriate as a legacy image. There was also some discussion over the lead image on the talk page, where it was decided that it should show Chaplin out of costume, as himself (see Talk:Charlie Chaplin/Archive 4). I amputated his elbow because otherwise their was a lot of white space around and he wasn't so "close up" (when confined to the 170px of "upright") -- Loeba (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "The Tramp is considered one of the most iconic images in cinema." -- By who?
 * I reworked this a bit. -- Loeba (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Does the source really format the number "81181 images" like this?
 * Yep -- Loeba (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OVERLINK to Richard Attenborough.
 * Fixed -- Loeba (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Awards and recognition
 * "during his later career in the 1960s and the 1970s" -- Do we need to give "later career" and the years? Surely they are the same thing?
 * Fixed -- Loeba (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "Chaplin was also awarded honorary..." →"He was also awarded honorary..."
 * Done -- Loeba (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Filmography
 * Sorry, you will probably disagree emphatically, but I find this section most redundant. Aside from the overlinking, we speak of these films right the way through the article so any opportunity to click on them to find out more would have presented itself at that opportunity.   Aesthetically, I find the white space to the right a bit of an eyesore to boot. As with all my views, that is simply what it is; a view.  No obligation to conform whatsoever.
 * I understand your point, but one of my pet-hates on Wikipedia is blank sections with nothing but a link to another article! Musician articles typically have a "Discography" heading with a link to the main article and then a bulleted list of albums underneath (Michael Jackson, David Bowie, Bob Dylan - all FA). I don't really see this as much different..? -- Loeba (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't be convinced on this I'm afraid. I agree, there is no sense whatsoever in creating a section purely to house a link.  This would be nonsensical and a complete waste of a section IMO. This is certainly not what I am suggesting.  We cannot reduce a career such as Chaplin's to a brief, bulleted list of just 11 films.  We have spent the last dozen sections explaining what kind of prolific, master filmmaker he was, and then we hurriedly round it off with a very brief résumé of his films.  As it stands the section does look half finished, rushed and ironically, the sort of thing you hate, a section with a link.  The only difference being that it has 11 films bolted onto the end. If this was me, the link to the article would go underneath "Filmmaking" and the "Filmography" section would then be scrapped altogether.  Keep for now, but I would be interested in what others think at a peer review or future FAC.  I take on board the FA lists you point out, but take a look at Stan and Dan,  and you will see that having no list but an appropriately placed link works just as well.  --  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   00:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah I see. I'm not crazy about that idea either TBH, because I always like to make information as easy to find as possible and it's entirely plausible that there will be people coming to the article specifically to see/find his filmography. But yeah, let's just see if anyone else comments on it. -- Loeba (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Notes and references
 * Note 16: Is there any reason why we duplicate ref 255 towards the end of the note? Would the last one only suffice?
 * Note 24: The same here, only we have three this time. In light of no contentious, libellous or assertive claims or quotes, I do think just the one will do.
 * Reference 34: replace the first period after the name with a comma.
 * Reference 139: missing period.
 * Reference 184: We seem to either be missing a page number of Chaplin, or Chaplin has accidentally been added.
 * Reference 234: Is this formatted correctly? Should it not be Chaplin, pp. 423, 477?
 * Reference 316: We have a stray within the text.
 * Reference 395: Missing an access date.
 * Reference 411: We use a semi-colon for this, but a comma for other similarly formatted references. Needs consistency.
 * Reference 435: Is it usual to combine a full stop and a semi-colon?
 * Reference 437: Missing year for 24 January.
 * Reference 448: Why do we italicise "BBC", but not Channel 4 in Ref 409, BBC Four in ref 405...
 * Reference 453: I'm not sure we need a retrieval date for an online book source.
 * You're amazing at catching these errors! I'm sure that was a tedious task as well, so thank you. Should all be fixed now. -- Loeba (talk) 20:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It did take some time and two cups of coffee, but I got there in the end! -- Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   00:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Formatting all looks OK.
 * Sources

All look good*
 * External links

Lead section
 * I think we should give him a credit in the opening as a composer seeing as we give him a subsection later on.
 * Done -- Loeba (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I also think we should cite the bold claim that he was considered one of the most important figures of the film industry. I feel a cite is needed after his name and birth/death years. This is given in most FAs.
 * I've cited the "most important" claim, but I could swear I never see FAs give a cite for birthdate in the lead? -- Loeba (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "Raised in London" →"Born in London". We know he was raised in London as we go onto talk about it.
 * The rest of the lead text doesn't specifically mention London, so I think it's worth making clear that he was raised there (not only born there)? -- Loeba (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "...famous men in the world." -- I know he was but "famous" is a bit peacocky.
 * Changed to "best known" -- Loeba (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to be "scouted by the film industry" or do you get scouted for the film industry?
 * Umm not sure about this one...I feel like "for the industry" sounds wrong, but I know what you mean that the film industry isn't capable of scouting itself! I've changed it to "for" for now, let's see if anyone at PR thinks it sounds wrong. -- Loeba (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "In 1919, Chaplin co-founded the distribution company United Artists, giving him complete control over his films." Noun plus-ing →"In 1919, Chaplin co-founded the distribution company United Artists, which gave him complete control over his films."
 * Done -- Loeba (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "were considered scandalous." →to prevent a "by who" shall we drop "considered" and go with "caused much scandal."
 * Done -- Loeba (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Images
 * See an early heads-up from on his talk. I fear we may have some possible problems ahead...gulp! --   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   00:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Great work Joe, thanks a lot! Ladies, over to you... --  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   16:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Image comments These points are only intended as additional "comments", requested by the GA-reviewer, Cassianto, not as any kind of formal review. Some of the listed points may or may not be strictly within the scope of GA-criteria: Big thanks for the image review Joe! -- Loeba (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * All single images (for the gallery FoP see the point below) look fine copyright-wise, well within GA-level. Uploaders did a really great job providing as much background context about their PD-situation as possible.
 * Some publication histories could use a bit more clarification. One image lacks a "nice" information template. But those are nitpicks and clearly outside of GA-criteria (should be handled at FAC, if that is a future goal).
 * Cool. I've become something of an expert on US copyright law thanks to wikipedia! Haha. I'm guessing the ones that may need their publication history improved are the ones of Hannah Chaplin and him holding the doll? The only way to give specific information would be to trawl through magazines and books pre-1923...but I just can't imagine any way these images would not have been published, at least somewhere, once, given that he received so much media attention..? -- Loeba (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I usually tend to give some leeway in such cases. As you said, some circumstances are nearly impossible to ascertain and we should be content with a logical, reasonable assumption based on the available evidence. But other reviewers may have other views in such situations - i'll gladly help with a second look, if the article should appear at FAC. GermanJoe (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Caption of File:Limelight_promo_crop.jpg has "Limelight (1952) was Chaplin's most serious and autobiographical film:" - that's probably true, but still needs an immediate source as subjective statement of opinion.
 * You're right that it is unnecessarily assertive (and now I think about it, A Woman of Paris is just as - if not more - serious). I've modified it to "was a serious and autobiographical film for Chaplin". That's okay without a cite in the caption, isn't it (it's sourced in the text)?
 * That's fine. GermanJoe (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Gallery/collage - as noted, please check WP:Gallery (this collage is an effective gallery), which discourages "indiscriminate collection of images". Only one or two of the most notable memorials as examples with detailed background information would be a lot better.
 * Remaining statue images would need to be checked in more detail: When exactly where the statues created? Has their source country "freedom of panorama" for outside statues or not? I haven't done that check yet, as several statue images may be better removed in my opinion. (A huge collection of Freedom of panorama rules for most countries can be found at Commons:Commons:Freedom of Panorama) GermanJoe (talk) 13:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a shame, I was pretty pleased with the collage (and how it shows his worldwide fame). Oh well, at least it had a good amount of time on the page. We now only have the Leicester Square statue (with an FoP tag added). -- Loeba (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. It's a very nice article and contribution to Wikipedia. GermanJoe (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria <hr width=50%>An informative, well-referenced and well-illustrated article on the life and works of Charlie Chaplin.
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to 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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have 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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

This article has been a true pleasure to read and review and I am completely satisfied that all the concerns – albeit not required for GAN – have been met and satisfied fully. This has been my first GA review and the experience has been made all the more better by the prompt, professional and friendly attitude of the nominators. I believe that it would make a perfect future candidate for WP:FAC, if that is to be its intended path. I'm now pleased to be able to award this article GA-status. Well done! --  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   17:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm delighted that you enjoyed the article so much! This review has been extremely helpful Cass, it is sincerely appreciated. Thank you :))) -- Loeba (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Seconding what Loeba said! Thanks so much for reviewing this article, it has been such a long project and it's extremely satisfying to finally see it completed :) At least until we try for FAC ;) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3