Jump to content

Talk:Eric Cartman/GA1

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

GA review

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    There are quite a few things that need touching up in the article.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    There are references for some of the sections, but there are lots of unsourced statements and OR in the in pop culture section.
  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):
    I really don't see the point of using a montage, and it probably goes against the image policy because combining several fair use images is generally frowned upon.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    While the article has improved quite a bit from the state it was a few weeks ago, it still has a ways to go. The article focuses too much on the in-universe aspects of his character, but wikipedia is more about real-world information, and there is quite a bit that could be added. I suggest listening to the commentaries, reading some interviews and trying to find more creation/development info on the character. For a model of what to base the article on, see Troy McClure, a FA, or Homer Simpson, Waylon Smithers, Sideshow Bob, Ned Flanders or any other present GAs. -- Scorpion0422 23:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]