Talk:God Help the Outcasts/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Luthien22 (talk · contribs) 17:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Hi, I'm Luthien22 (talk), and I'm going to be reviewing this article for GA.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Overall the prose is excellent. I have a few very minor quibbles with the clarity of a couple of the quotes in the reception section (for instance the Plugged In quote), but I have no doubt that these very minor issues will be resolved over time and are no reason to fail this for good prose.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Although there are many citations and no original research, almost an entire section is sourced from blogs ("Background and Someday"). It also cites two Google Drive documents that, when clicked, brought up 404 errors. This is a shame since the rest of the article is for the most part well sourced. It shouldn't be particularly hard to fix the one section with issues. The Hunchback DVD clearly contains all the information on "Someday" that was found on these blogs, since almost all of them mention the DVD as their source. All citations from blogs have been replaced by reliable sources. Luthien22 (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• This actually didn't take as long as I initially thought it would. Simply removed the less reliable sources as there were enough reliable sources to make up for it, including two published books and a Deseret News article.--Changedforbetter (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   This article does a good job on covering all important information related to this topic, while focusing appropriate attention to the key points.

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   This article doesn't seem to have any POV issues. The analysis section could probably use monitoring for possible POV language, but right now it seems fine.

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Going through the article history I didn't notice any edit warring or instability, which is a bit harder to do for Disney topics since they attract so many editors who often choose not to comply with Wikipedia policy. Great job on that.

4. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

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

   I realize this is an article about a song, but I feel that at least the info box should have an image, possibly of the soundtrack album this song was released on.

• I'm not too sure about this...you see, this song has yet to be released as an official single so putting an image of the Hunchback album cover might be misleading. Also, none of the other Disney-related song articles I have edited that are now good articles – Belle (Disney song), Be Our Guest, I See the Light – have covers as none of them are singles. As well as countless other non-single articles on Wikipedia: Side Effects, Radio, Dance for You.Changedforbetter (talk) 18:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Going back through the article, I realized I missed some images. Both are properly tagged with the fair use rationale, so we're good to go. Also, I checked the sound files, and those are fine as well. Would still like an image in the infobox, but as you pointed out, that's not key here.Luthien22 (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The main thing keeping me from giving this GA is the sources. Would a couple weeks be enough time for the editors on this page to find better sources, specifically for the Background section relating to the song "Someday"? Comment below to let me know.

   • All issues with sourcing have been taken care of, which were the main issues keeping this from GA. Therefore this article is now GA.

• As the main editor of this page, I can guarantee that I should have the sources checked and reorganized in at least two days. Thanks!--Changedforbetter (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• I've responded to all your requests! :)--Changedforbetter (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)