Talk:Barbette (performer)/GA1

GA Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Review by Cazo3788 (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Unable to check the many books used.

• Comment - with the exception of the Cocteau biography (from which nothing is currently sourced) and the Hammarstrom, all of the book material is accessible through a Google book search. Otto4711 (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

1. B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   No citations in the introduction.

• Comment : Wikipedia:Lead section#Citations says that the need for cites in the lead section should be weighed against the need to keep the lead section free of redundant cites. The lead is a summary of the article, therefore if the same point is cited within the article, it is not mandatory to also cite it in the lead. This issue often comes down to personal preference, however in some WP:FA discussions, consensus has led to the removal of cites from the lead as part of the review process. Rossrs (talk) 22:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

1. C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

3. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

4. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Much of the work has been completed very recently by a single user. Not yet stable.

5. 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:

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This article seems to merit good article status, however as this is my first review I'm going to call for a second opinion.