Talk:Duckman/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Johanna (talk · contribs) 03:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I will place this on hold for a few days, but this article is far from meeting the good article criteria, especially in sourcing.

Key information in the infobox is not sourced, such as genre, executive producers, production companies, and distributor.
The vast majority of the "premise" section is unsourced.
It also suffers from not being concise and an unencyclopedic tone.
The Production section is far from broad.
Some of the material that appears to be cited to ref 7 is not in the reference.
The next reference is a dead link, and I have no idea what it originally was supposed to be, so everything after ref 7 is pretty much unsourced for the time being.
About "guest stars/additional voices": This is an overly extensive list that borders on meeting WP:INDISCRIMINATE. In addition, the part of TV.com you are referencing is based on a wiki model, which is an unacceptable source.
The "Video Game" section is entirely unsourced.
"Both DVD sets were released by CBS Home Entertainment. With the DVD release, many episodes were edited to remove copyrighted music and as a result they differ somewhat from the aired TV episodes." Needs a source
The Reception section should be greatly expanded.

@Philmonte101: Placing on hold for now. Here is my condensed current assessment:

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Final verdict

At this point, it has been several days, and the editor has not responded to anything on this review page, although they have contributed since the review. The user has been pinged and Legobot sent them a talk page message, but they have still not responded. As a result, I am failing this good article nomination. There are many problems with the article in its current state and I urge anyone who wants to improve the article to address them. Thank you. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 20:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]