This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 23:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

Although the prose is certainly good enough, it isn't brilliant; I'd probably give it 5/10. There is a lot of redundancy and overlong sentences, some colloquialisms and other problems. I began a copyedit, but soon realised I didn't have the time to do it properly. I suggest getting someone to take a proper look at it. I also think the very long sections on his playing career should be broken up.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

While not a serious problem at this stage, this article is heavily reliant on the Cherry source which is heavily quoted in the text in an unenecyclopedic manner. Many other books (including two by Chamberlain himself) are mentioned, but neither appears in the references. Consider widening the range of sources.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• It is stable.

  

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail: