Talk:Laurel and Hardy/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: GRAPPLE X 22:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


Always loved these fellas. Let's see how the article stacks up.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    MOS compliance is fine, and the prose style is good.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
    Sources are good, citations are good, and there's no OR here.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
    Scope's good, not too broad or too narrow.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Neutral and unbiased.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    History is stable and uncontroversial.
  6. 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:
    All the images check out okay, but there's far too many of them. I'd cull it down to three or four at the absolute most.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Given that the only problem I've found is aesthetic, I'm going to pass this article, but I would like to see some of the extraneous images removed. There's definitely too many of them.