Talk:Boys' Club (Parks and Recreation)/GA1

GA Review

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

Starting GA Review. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

   • 

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

   • 

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • 

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • 

5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

   • 

No quick fail problems. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:27, 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):

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • Ref #1 is to a blog/fan site; ref #7 links to a blog aggregator; ref #11 TV squad is a blog. These do not meet the criteria of WP:RS so other sources need to be found. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:50, 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, all good except for the referencing issues noted above. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)  Done

   OK, I accept that The Hill Blog Briefing Room is associated with The Hill, and is written by Michael O'Brien who is a staffer on The Hill, so that should be OK. Congratulations, you have a good article. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• I dropped the other two, but I think the #7 reference is OK. Its a blog, but its the blog of an officials newspaper (The Hill) which is a legitimate source. Take a look at it again and see if you agree? — Hunter Kahn _(c) 02:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)