GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Pyrotec ( talk • message • contribs • count • logs • email) 22:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I've now done a very quick read through of the article, but I've not checked any of the citations. On this basis, the article appears to be at or about GA-standard: it appears to be well referenced. I'm now going to work my way through the article in more detail.
I'll be going through the article, at this section, section by section but leaving the WP:Lead until last. This should take a day or so. Pyrotec ( talk) 19:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
At this stage of the review, I'm only highlighting "problems", so if I don't have much to say on a particular section/subsection then that means that I regard it as being OK.
Overall, at this stage of the review, this appears to be a well referenced article, but I think that the ancestry citations are a bit too vague & possibly the results have been misunderstood. Pyrotec ( talk) 10:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
(If you need help on the following please ask. If you don't ask, I'll just assume that you know what you (collectively) are doing.) Pyrotec ( talk) 10:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
... stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec ( talk) 22:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Note: The above comments have been updated. Pyrotec ( talk) 10:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
... stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec ( talk) 11:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
At GA, these three sections are OK, but if this article were to go to WP:FAC (see below), they are completely unreferenced.
Pyrotec ( talk) 18:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
At this point, I can concerns over the verifiability of some of the claims, mostly those using www.ancestory.co.uk - 7,000 or 17,000 "hits" on a subscription only site that prevents the indexes from being viewed without a subscription is hardly verification (I'm willing to help here provided it does not comprise the review) and IMDB seems to be a problem. These should be fixable in a day or so (possibly much less), so I'm putting the review On Hold. Pyrotec ( talk) 18:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
A generally well reference, well illustrated and comprehensive article on Stanley Holloway
In the light of the corrective actions completed, I'm pleased to be able to award this article GA-status. I think that this article, in due course, could make WP:FAC, but not without citations for the Stage shows and Film and television appearance sections. It would also suggest that a second opinion, or WP:PR to obtained in respect of my views on Reliable Sources for films and television appearances before moving towards a WP:FAC nomination.
Congratulations on producing an informative article and on gaining GA-status. Pyrotec ( talk) 20:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Pyrotec ( talk • message • contribs • count • logs • email) 22:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I've now done a very quick read through of the article, but I've not checked any of the citations. On this basis, the article appears to be at or about GA-standard: it appears to be well referenced. I'm now going to work my way through the article in more detail.
I'll be going through the article, at this section, section by section but leaving the WP:Lead until last. This should take a day or so. Pyrotec ( talk) 19:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
At this stage of the review, I'm only highlighting "problems", so if I don't have much to say on a particular section/subsection then that means that I regard it as being OK.
Overall, at this stage of the review, this appears to be a well referenced article, but I think that the ancestry citations are a bit too vague & possibly the results have been misunderstood. Pyrotec ( talk) 10:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
(If you need help on the following please ask. If you don't ask, I'll just assume that you know what you (collectively) are doing.) Pyrotec ( talk) 10:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
... stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec ( talk) 22:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Note: The above comments have been updated. Pyrotec ( talk) 10:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
... stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec ( talk) 11:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
At GA, these three sections are OK, but if this article were to go to WP:FAC (see below), they are completely unreferenced.
Pyrotec ( talk) 18:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
At this point, I can concerns over the verifiability of some of the claims, mostly those using www.ancestory.co.uk - 7,000 or 17,000 "hits" on a subscription only site that prevents the indexes from being viewed without a subscription is hardly verification (I'm willing to help here provided it does not comprise the review) and IMDB seems to be a problem. These should be fixable in a day or so (possibly much less), so I'm putting the review On Hold. Pyrotec ( talk) 18:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
A generally well reference, well illustrated and comprehensive article on Stanley Holloway
In the light of the corrective actions completed, I'm pleased to be able to award this article GA-status. I think that this article, in due course, could make WP:FAC, but not without citations for the Stage shows and Film and television appearance sections. It would also suggest that a second opinion, or WP:PR to obtained in respect of my views on Reliable Sources for films and television appearances before moving towards a WP:FAC nomination.
Congratulations on producing an informative article and on gaining GA-status. Pyrotec ( talk) 20:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)