Talk:Binky (polar bear)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aaron north (talk) 05:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

First, I suspect that concerns about Notability may come up someday, now or in the future from other editors or reviewers. WP:N I believe the subject is notable enough to merit a seperate article. Wikipedia is not a news source, so a subject that is covered only briefly, even if the coverage is broad all over the world for just one incident where facts are reported and little or no debate and discussion takes place, is not notable. Had this been a bear attack at a zoo where the animal was put down, or the public didn't really react and there was a settled lawsuit and nothing else, etc then this would not be notable. Without the photo in the article, that very well may have happened. However, it appears that the widely-seen photo of the bear with the shoe (as well as perhaps a slow news cycle) may have helped spark a lot of reaction, discussion, and analysis about the responsibility of a zoo to ensure safety vs the responsibility of the patrons not to be idiots. There was also a 2nd incident (so not just 1 story that died down), and it seems Binky became some sort of weird folk hero in Alaska complete with t-shirts, books, and other merchandise. As for the thought that Binky may have only been notable a decade or so ago but not any more, I refer to WP:NTEMP which basically says that once a subject meets WP's notability standards, it never loses notability through the passage of time. Aaron north (talk) 23:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Y Anyway, all that said, I have finished my review. There is not much to say about the subject, but this article seems to cover what there is to know about the bear, it is well-written, neutral, and well-sourced. This is a tricky article to source when you have to primarily rely on newspaper articles that are old, some over 30 years old. After one minor fix, this is an easy pass. Aaron north (talk) 23:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

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: