Talk:Kadabra/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AerobicFox (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

I'll keep the review short since up front it seems to meet the requirements for GA, and after having read it a few times I cannot really think of any comments to make.

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   The prose is refreshingly well written. No problems with the Wiki layout either. Some may see the external links from this page to Bulbapedia as a problem, though I do not. I'm glad to see the lead for this article summarizes all the main points of the article as that is something GA nominations often forget.

It has been the consensus with the Pokemon Project that Bulbapedia actually does meet the requirements of WP:EL. It states links to be avoided are _{Links to open wikis, except those with a "substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors."}

I was unaware of such a discussion. Thanks for informing me.AerobicFox (talk) 03:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Everything is well cited. The Yahoo! source for Geller is currently a deadlink, but that's not really concerning.

Hmm. Thats odd. I just used checklinks just the other day, and it was fine. Well, thats too bad.

It looks like Yahoo is changing their domain or something, and that it may be back up on a later date. I'd check back in a few months to see if the article has returned.AerobicFox (talk) 03:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   A nice balance of broad and focused content.

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Yes.

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Little activity. Very stable.

4. 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):

   Fair use rationale included. No other images leap out at me that could enhance this article without unnecessarily including another fair use image.

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This was a quick review. Good job all. AerobicFox (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Commented. Thanks for the review. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course, np.AerobicFox (talk) 03:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)