Talk:The Transformers (IDW Publishing)/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

Starting GA Sweeps reassessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • There are several dead links found using this tool [1]  Done

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • References from {http://transfans.net/} not allowable as this is a fan site; the forum section of newsarama {http://forum.newsarama.com/} likewise; the allspark {http://www.allspark.com/} likewise; the forum section of IDW publishing {http://forum.idwpublishing.com/} likewise; Simon Fuhrman blog Ok as he is the established expert on himself; One Shall Stand {http://www.oneshallstand.com/aboutus.html} is also a fansite. These cannot be deemed as WP:RS within Wikipedia's criteria. If you can't find RS for the statements then they shouldn't be there. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)  Done

   c (OR):

3. It is broad in its scope.

   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:

   • OK, I am going to put this on hold for seven days so that these issues can be fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

   On the sources you say "newsarama {http://forum.newsarama.com/} likewise" but that is actually fine as a source (it is one of the leading comics news, reviews and interviews site and received numerous awards and is used as a source on hundreds of comic book articles, including GA and above) - at the time Newsarama was using forum software as their publication medium, they have since moved to a bespoke system but either way is fine when the reference is to the main post, the comments are clearly another issue (although there are occasionally posts by creators explaining a point, but these would have to be judged on a case-by-case basis). (Emperor (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC))

   OK, I take your point on re-examining that citation as it it is by one of the publication's editors. I have retrieved an archive version of citation #6. All OK, keep GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)