Talk:Doctor Who fandom/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Courcelles (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, I'd have been justified quick-failing this nomination; this article, as it exists, is not a good article, as indicated by the maintenance tag on the Fanzines section. The "Fan Productions" section, among others, is also largely unreferenced. A good goal would be one reference per sentence, a good standard would be absolutely no less than one reference per paragraph.

Two links to Disambiguation pages: [1]

Refs 10 and 19 are dead; so is the external link

Use the cite web or other citation templates; bare URL citations aren't enough at the GA-level.

Ref 6; be careful about using primary sources

Watch the prose quality; "One of the most significant fan groups producing"- without sourcing, this violates WP:PEACOCK. As you work on the citations, the prose issues will start to straighten themselves out.

Honestly, here's the problem. This article could be 100% true, or not. It could be filled with original research. As a casual Doctor Who watcher, the major things strike me as accurate enough, but the general lack of citations makes it impossible to tell. As such, I'm failing this GA nomination. I'd recommend a significant upgrade in sourcing, and a through copy-edit before returning to WP:GAN with this article, though, if you disagree with me, feel free to renominate immediately or take it to good article reassessment. Courcelles (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]