Talk:Boys' Club (Parks and Recreation)/GA1
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Jezhotwells in topic GA Review
GA Review
editArticle (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Starting GA Review. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Quick fail criteria assessment
- The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
- The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
- There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
- The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
- The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
No quick fail problems. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Checking against GA criteria
edit- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
- b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
- b (citations to reliable sources):
Ref #1 is to a blog/fan site; ref #7 links to a blog aggregator; ref #11 TV squad is a blog. These do not meet the criteria of WP:RS so other sources need to be found. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Done
- c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its scope.
- a (major aspects):
- b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
OK, all good except for the referencing issues noted above. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC) Done
- OK, I accept that The Hill Blog Briefing Room is associated with The Hill, and is written by Michael O'Brien who is a staffer on The Hill, so that should be OK. Congratulations, you have a good article. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
- I dropped the other two, but I think the #7 reference is OK. Its a blog, but its the blog of an officials newspaper (The Hill) which is a legitimate source. Take a look at it again and see if you agree? — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)