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

Reviewer: Onel5969 (talk · contribs) 02:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Hi Ritchie333 - Just from a subjective standpoint, I think the article is in pretty good shape. Will go through it today and tomorrow. If I leave specific comments, and you make corrections, please "ping" me, and I'll take another look.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   Take a look at this copyvio report there are some direct cut and paste, and quite a bit of close paraphrasing.

First those are sites that have copied the Wikipedia article, not the other way round. Secondly, did you actually read the report, because having copyedited the entire article from top to bottom, diff the odds of any actual copyvios left are zero. I didn't find any in this article when working on it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Yes I did actually read the report. Nothing in it to suggest that this was an instance of reverse copyvio. The blog was posted back in 2008. But I realized that I could check how the article looked prior to the blog post, so yes, I agree it is reverse copyvio, so I'll remove this objection.

I've copyedited some areas that report complained about. Ironically it makes the suspected copyvio score higher! The current site it's complaining about, http://reviews-and-ramblings.dreamwidth.org/3303052.html is definitely a scrape of an earlier revision of the article, as it contains the sentence "Its website is no longer online and the Internet Movie Database page has been deleted; the Graham Chapman Archive's website has disappeared as well" which I removed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

1. B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Nice layout, no peacock terms (except when quoting 3rd parties), nice filmography table. The one issue I have (which wouldn't preclude me passing it) is the 2nd sentence. It seems abrupt and awkward. The rest of the lead reflects the article and succinct and nicely done.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   No raw links. #48 needs more information, since there is no link to it. #76 also needs more info.

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   nice coverage, going over all of the main aspects of Chapman's life.

   B. Focused (see summary style):

   Covers each topic well, without too much over-detail.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   No POV issue

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   no edit war issues

6. 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:

   The two fair use rationales seem on topic. The other two pics are free. Would be nice if there were another pic or two, but again, that wouldn't preclude it being rated GA

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Only due to 1a, and some slight cleanup in the references.