Talk:Neville Chamberlain/GA1

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

Hi: I'll take a shot at reviewing this article. Reviewer: Ray  Talk 16:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

1: Well written?
 * No issues here. The prose is superb and a model of good English style. The article is well-organized and reads easily.

2: Factually accurate?
 * The sources that do appear are of high quality, and the article is extensively referenced. However, certain sections are almost entirely unreferenced, and this is problematic. In particular, the Minister of Health, opposition, Return to the Exchequer, Relations with Ireland, Lord President of the Council and Death, and Legacy sections have large numbers of uncited statements. This needs to be corrected. Owing to the high reputation of the nominator and major author, as well as time constraints, I did not check the references individually.

'''3: Broad in coverage? '''
 * It seems to cover all the major highlights of his life in about the right proportions.

4: Neutral point of view?

5: Article stability?
 * Wehwalt appears to still be adding to the article; I'm a bit puzzled that it was nominated for GA while such revisions are going on, but I do not think it a bar to passage.

'''6: Images? '''
 * Looks good. File:MolotovRibbentropStalin.jpg may not actually be public domain in Russia and thus inappropriate for Commons, but the NARA record release indicates no restrictions on publication in the US, which is good enough for en-wikipedia.

This was a pleasure to read and a really great article. Once the citations are up for those sections, I forsee a quick and easy pass. Ray Talk 17:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review. I nommed it early because there have recently been extensive delays in GAN, I am surprised it was taken so early.  I will have these sections (and you identified them correctly!) done within a week and ask that you hold on pending those.  Khrushchev sat for a month until I gave up and just nommed it for FA, you see, so I was anticipating a lengthy delay.  But it gives me incentive to complete my work on the article!--Wehwalt (talk) 20:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks great now. Closing up the review. Ray Talk 05:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)