Talk:Laurel and Hardy/GA1

GA Review

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.