Talk:Mewtwo/GA1

GA Review

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

Quick fail criteria assessment

1. Verifiability

(a) lacks reliable sources

(b) improperly cited references

2. NPOV

(a) not biases to one side

3. Cleanup banners/tags

(a) no cleanup banners

(b) no {citation needed} links

(c) similar tags to the aboce

4. Stability

(a) no ongoing edit wars

(b) no massive changes which alter important content

5. Current Event

(a) doesn't describe a current, ongoing events

Passed quick-fail. Will start thorough review Ajpralston1 (talk) 09:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Ajpralston1 (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit reverting happens in every article. Noobs come and try and add silly things. That shouldn't halt the review. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not halting the review, but this article has been reassessed and delisted for no stability before. Its needs to be stable to get GA. I don't want to pass it for it to get delisted again. I'm waiting to see if it does change daily with reverts. I understand that noobs add silly things but it doesn't matter. No stability, No GA. Ajpralston1 (talk) 12:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The stability should be fine for GA (and even FA) standards to be completely honest. "Stability" refers more readily to ongoing edit wars over existing content, not the typical vandals. It's more a case where content drastically shifts (not to mention I don't think I've seen any GAR's over the past two years on the grounds of instability).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The criteria says "no ongoing edit wars". None of the sort is going on. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 12:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Relax! I passed the quick fail. I agree that the content only really changes due to mindless vandalism, not so much over content or edit disagreement. Ajpralston1 (talk) 09:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Good Articel Review

1. It is Well-written

(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct.

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout.

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.

(c) it contains no original research.

3. It is very Broad in its coverage

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail

4. Written in a Neutral POV

(a) it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

5. It is Stable with no ongoing edit wars

(a) it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

No edit wars at all. Any edit disputes are usually down to vandalism!

6. It is Illustrated by images if possible

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

I will put the review on hold until the few problems are addressed, once they are then it should pass. As you previously told me that you can't get to the internet regularly, I will leave it on hold for 10 days. If you need help with anything or don't agree with something I have wrote, please leave a message on my talk page. Ajpralston1 (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

As for 2a, all those sentences are cited in the main body of the article. If you referenced everything in the lead, it would be messy to look at, as well as to edit. This is why on many articles we have not referenced most of the lead. As for the images, people are funny about those. Some say they help demonstrate the topic, while others say they are unnecessary. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The statements in the lead are actually sourced further in the article: WP:LEAD actually pushes against redundant sourcing in a case like this in the lead. As for the image, there wasn't much I could add that would be fair-use compliant, and the only one that featured Dr. Fuji alongside Mewtwo was very poor quality. I've run into issues before where images in character articles don't really add anything to the article in Necrid's FAC's, and a push that if none do to just use the infobox. Is this sufficient?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I will pass the article. Just one small tip: - Try and add another image if possible. It will make the article look better. Overall though it is a well written article with no grammar or spelling errors. It read well and the layout is good. The sourced information from the lead which is further along in the article is fine. Nice one! Ajpralston1 (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Non-free images should not be added to articles just because it will make them look better. Please take a look at the non-free content criteria. Theleftorium 15:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Frankenstein's monster (Boris Karloff).jpg could perhaps be added, though. It's free. Theleftorium 15:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No need for sarcasm. It was just a suggestion. Images DO make articles look better and more appealing, thus are more likely to be read thoroughly. Ajpralston1 (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't using sarcasm, so sorry if it came across like I did. What I said was correct, though. Non-free images should never be used to make an article look more appealing. Theleftorium 20:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)