Talk:Ronnie Barker/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I was slightly concerned with the paragraph explaining the Four Candles sketch. It is probably as well written as it could be, and meets the criteria of being clear and concise prose, but writing in the very objective concise language of a Wikipedia article to describe a comedy sketch brings to mind the line from who knows!?: "Talking about music is like dancing about architecture." The paragraph might present difficulties if presented for featured article review. It does slightly stick out as not the most engaging prose ever written (in my subjective opinion), but the alternative seems to be to not have it at all. That's probably worse than having a paragraph that can only be unsatisfying compared with watching the sketch itself.
   
   That said, the prose quality is pretty good. I found the discussion about the Gerald Wiley pseudonym and the speculation around it amusing and interesting (mostly in contrast to current day comedians: I can't imagine any modern day comedian doing something similar).

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   The Channel 4 link is now dead (although it doesn't return a 404 or 410 error, annoyingly) and I've marked it as Dead Link. It only establishes that the Four Candles sketch was listed in the 50 Greatest Comedy Sketches list. That a Two Ronnies sketch placed highly in such a list is believable enough even with a dead link. It would obviously be preferable if that could be replaced with a link to a non-dead reliable source for the claim, but a single dead link in 91 references doesn't seem a good reason to say that the article fails on WP:RS/WP:V grounds. The only source that were even marginally doubtful were the links to Chortle.co.uk. But I had a poke around and can't see anyone on Wikipedia doubting that they are a reliable source (one WP:PR reviewer seemed to think they were okay in reference to a far less well-known comedian than Barker) to establish either news about comedians or reception of comedy gigs.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The amount of coverage given in the article seems to match the importance of the various shows and works that Barker was involved in.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Barker isn't a controversial topic. Article includes an appropriate amount of "what the critics say" type material.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No edit warring or other assorted nastiness.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   I changed one of the captions from saying that the plaque is 'on' Barker's birthplace to saying it is 'marking' it, which is less exact and avoids an Americanism. Otherwise, images and captions are fine. The File:FrostReportClassSketch.jpg descriptions could be improved: it wouldn't be onerous to write a description of what the sketch is about on the image page. (I may do that after I've finished the GA review.)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Clearly meets the criteria for Good Article status.

Reviewer: Tom Morris (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks very much. I've fixed the Channel 4 link using WebArchive. Gran² 14:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)