Talk:Play-Doh/GA1
GA Review[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
The "Creation" subsection should contain references. Beyond that, this may be a quick pass. I will now take some time to examine the sources. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- I am uncertain whether several web-based sources used here meet WP:RS. I'm also concerned with the choppiness of sections. Unfortunately I may have to withdraw from this review due in part to computer problems (slowness.) Not sure exactly how to go about that without leaving a mess. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Don't worry, I can take over from here. Hello, I'm Weebiloobil (talk · contribs), and I will be continuing this review. Feel free to
prod meask me relevent questions. The review should be ready within a week; we'll see how things go from there. Hello again! - weebiloobil (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Don't worry, I can take over from here. Hello, I'm Weebiloobil (talk · contribs), and I will be continuing this review. Feel free to
The Review[edit]
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
The reviewed version can be found here
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- Good, if a little basic. One issue around WWII I fixed myself
- B. MoS compliance:
- Shame about the lack of an external Links section, but not required at GA stage
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- The lead could do with a couple of references; "a considerable amount of ancillary merchandise" would at least require a citation
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- Ideally, there would be a 'Usage' section, describing its main properties; this should not be restricted to the lead
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- I'm putting the article on hold until the lead recieves a citation. Feel free to contact me when you think you have done; if not, I shall return in 7 days. Auf wiedersehen! - weebiloobil (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
Outcome[edit]
Well, it seems that you've done everything I asked for, which means that this article has succesfully passed as a Good Aticle. Well done! But the fun doesn't stop there. As always, Good Article nominations has a backlog, so it would be really great if you could help out by reviewing an article or 20. The Spring 2009 backlog clearance drive is not yet over! </plug> Once again, well done on the article - weebiloobil (talk) 09:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Generic playdoh[edit]
I know one can buy play-doh type products, and something very similar can be made simply at home (water/salt/flour/food-colouring): Is there a name to call these things other than "generic play-doy stuff"?YobMod 07:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)