Talk:Charlie Chan/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

I believe I've seen this before and that it was relisted? I don't know, but I felt that I would review it now (as I did look at the page a while back). I hope you don't mind. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. Thank you. Ricardiana (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 1: well-written[edit]

Lead

The lead is one paragraph. MoS recommends at least 2-3 for a 40k page. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Books

Sentences are, for the most part, precise. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ricardiana (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"reading of" There is no statement what he was reading - newspaper, book, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Ricardiana (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"In the text" - "text" sounds a little too dry for a novel. In the story? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "in the novel." Ricardiana (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"description of Chan allows" - Perhaps this should be "allowed" as per the preceding tense use. The paragraph and the section suddenly switches to present tense. This would cause problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed preceding tense. Ricardiana (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"argues that the books" - There is only one mention of a book at this time. Perhaps other books should be mentioned? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Ricardiana (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Films

"A year later Universal Pictures followed with" Should be "followed the film with" in order to be more clear. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Ricardiana (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"transformed at the last minute into a Mr. Moto film" It would help to mention a little about the Moto films (i.e., rivals? contemporaries? etc). Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Ricardiana (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"even in the forties" This would seem to make more sense as just "in the forties". The "even" suggests a tone of surprise that does not seem justified without further explanation. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was a response to a question someone was asking a long time ago now. I've re-worded it. Ricardiana (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy and criticism

The blockquote by "Critic Michael Brodhead" might not be long enough to warrant being placed in blockquotes. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked. Ricardiana (talk) 02:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Others argue that Chan" It would help to list some names instead of the citations without attributions. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added some names (I put Huang Guiyou's family name first per Chinese style, although I also list her as Huang, Guiyou [American-style] in the bib., for consistency in bib. formatting). Ricardiana (talk) 02:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 2: factually accurate and verifiable[edit]

Comics and games

This section lacks citations on two of the sections. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know. Someone keeps adding this info in, and I just can't find any sources to which to cite it. Ricardiana (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the uncited sections invisible for now. I've looked many times and scoured every source I can think of and can't find any support. Of course, now the section is tiny. Suggestions? Ricardiana (talk) 02:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is it you need citations for that's being discussed above? Шизомби (talk) 11:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comics and games section. Ottava has helpfully pointed to a few refs. Ricardiana (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

You mix references and notes together. You might want to find a page that separates into two sections so you could have explanatory footnotes divided off. The Lucy poems now uses this function.

Will take a look. I see Lucy got FA - congratulations! Ricardiana (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see a problem with using this style, which is that to do it you need a Notes + References + Bibliography section. However, this article already has a bib., the list of books featuring Chan. What do you suggest? Works Cited instead of a (second) bib.? Ricardiana (talk) 02:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 3: broad in its coverage[edit]

It appears to fit this criteria. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 4: neutral[edit]

It appears to fit this criteria to the best of my knowledge on the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One would think.... I don't doubt someone will find it deeply offensive somewhere down the line. However, I'm glad you think it's okay. Ricardiana (talk) 02:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 5: stable[edit]

I do not see any possibility of there being an edit war or any destabilization of the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 6: illustrated, if possible, by images[edit]

Images appear to check out. One non-free image seems to be completely appropriate and rationale is accepted. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]