Talk:Joseph Grimaldi/GA1

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 19:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments
Sorry for the delay, I was expecting to be at this point a week ago. Nevertheless, I'm here now. Pyrotec (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

This article looks like a potential WP:FAC, but since this is WP:GAN I'll be reviewing it against WP:WIAGA. I'm start my review, as I usually do at, the first section, Biography, I'll work my way to the end and then go back at do the WP:Lead.

This stage is mostly looking for "problems", if any, so my comments will mostly be directed here to those aspects of the nomination. This step is likely to take several days. Pyrotec (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Biography -
 * Family background and early years -
 * Looks compliant.


 * Early years at Sadler's Wells and Drury Lane -
 * Looks compliant.

...Stopping at this point. To be continued, tomorrow. Pyrotec (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Last years at Drury Lane -
 * Looks compliant.


 * Covent Garden years -
 * Looks compliant.

...Stopping at this point. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Later career -
 * Looks compliant.


 * Last years, death and legacy -
 * Looks compliant.


 * WP:Lead -
 * The lead provides quite a good introduction to the article, it provides a reasonable summary in accordance with WP:lead and with a "length" of four paragraphs is also compliant.
 * I gave some consideration as to whether the lead was "missing anything" and whether it should be be longer, without coming to any strong conclusions. I pondered on whether relations (deteriorating) with the son JS and/or his difficulties as a theatre proprietor should be included; and whether the lead needed to be longer. At four paragraphs the lead is "about right" so any additional material would need to be accommodated within a four-paragraph-structure. Relations with JS and theatre proprietorship form only a small part of the article, so the "due weight" considerations of the WP:Lead is applicable.
 * I believe that the article has reasonable prospect at WP:FAC, so it may need "beefing up" there, but at WP:GAN its quite adequate/acceptable. Pyrotec (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria This article is a "strong: WP:GAN nomination, and I believe has potential at WP:FAC.
 * 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. 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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Yes.
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * The article is well provided with images, one of which has, as yet unresolved, "copyright claims against Wikimedia Commons in relation to the work from which this is sourced or a purely mechanical reproduction thereof".
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 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:
 * Yes.
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * The article is well provided with images, one of which has, as yet unresolved, "copyright claims against Wikimedia Commons in relation to the work from which this is sourced or a purely mechanical reproduction thereof".
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

I'm pleased to be able to award this article GA status. I believe that it could make it though WP:FAC, if that is to be its intended path. My only advice would be to look at the Lede and consider whether any work would be needed for FA (this is outside my areas of expertise), WP:PR may be a source of information from a wider viewpoint than mine. Pyrotec (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Waiting with bated breath and a huge sigh of relief my end all round, I'm elated to have this awarded good article status. Having already sat a PR prior to this GAC, I will have to take another look at the lede again before heading over to FAC.   Once again Pyrotec, thank you so much for taking the time to review. --   Cassianto Talk  23:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)