Jump to content

Talk:Buck Danny/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Sadads (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:


This article is not suited for a Good article, because it is mostly unsourced, which is one of the main requirements of #1 and WP:Verifiability. I would suggest working on making a citation for almost every piece of information in the article, and reducing the amount of plot summary and focusing on real world details as provided by WP:Reliable sources, Sadads (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]