Talk:Nina Girado/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 00:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I am starting a GA review of this article. North8000 (talk) 00:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Review discussion
[edit]I checked about 20 references and came up with no actual references. There were dead links on bare URL references, I-Tunes sales pages, personal blogs, web pages that had no content related to the topic, blank pages at non-working websites. Coupled with the fact that these were given as sources for some pretty strong claims (of the type that would be promotional writing without strong sourcing) and I think that this article has a long way to go to become GA. I'm not sure where to start, so I'll go by reference numbers (all reference numbers are the numbers as of 12/23/13). I'll be building this over time. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- (added later) Clarifying, I checked 20 and found none and so then I checked 50 and the results are below. North8000 (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Reference #1 is an I-tunes album sales page.
- Reference #2 (used 4 times) is a near-bare-url (title only) to what looks like a broken link or blank page
- Reference #3 is a dead link
- Reference #4 (used twice) is a dead link
- Reference #5 is to an I-Tunes album sales page
- Reference #6 is a dead link
- Reference #7 (used 5 times) is to an entertainment portal, but looks like a real article
- Reference #8 (used twice) is a dead link
- Reference #9 Looks like a real reference, not in English
- Reference #10 links to an article about an oil leak, nothing to do with the topic
- Reference #11 Is to a poster advertising a concert
- Reference #12 links to an article about basketball, nothing to do with the topic
- Reference #13 is a dead link
- Reference #14 (used twice)links to an article about a political appointment battle, nothing to do with the topic
- Reference #15 Goes to a YouTube Video
- Reference #16 (used 4 times) is a dead link
- Reference #17 (used 5 times) Goes to an article unrelated to the topic
- Reference #18 (used 8 times) Goes to an article unrelated to the topic
- Reference #19 (used 6 times) Goes to an article unrelated to the topic
- Reference #20 (used 5 times) is a dead link
- Reference #21 Goes to a web page unrelated to the topic
- Reference #22 is off line. Looks like a catalog/discography
- Reference #23 (used 4 times) appears to be a dead link
- Reference #24 is a dead link
- Reference #25 is a dead link
- Reference #26 goes to an article unrelated to the topic
- Reference #27 is a dead link
- Reference #28 is an I-tunes album sales page.
- Reference #29 is a dead link
- Reference #30 is a dead link
- Reference #31 is an I-tunes album sales page.
- Reference #32 is a dead link
- Reference #33 appears to be a dead link (blank page)
- Reference #34 is off line, an interview on a DVD
- Reference #35 is a dead link
- Reference #36 goes to a web page that has nothing about the topic.
- Reference #37 very brief real article / writeup (about 6 sentences)
- Reference #38 (used twice) is a bad or dead link
- Reference #39 (used 4 times) is a bad or dead link
- Reference #40 is a dead link
- Reference #41 is a dead link
- Reference #42 is a dead link
- Reference #43 goes to a real list of sexiest women. Unclear if the rating is by a blogger or FHM
- Reference #44 is a dead link
- Reference #45 is a dead link
- Reference #46 goes to a real article about the breakup with Nyoy
- Reference #47 goes to a real article about the breakup with Nyoy
- Reference #48 is a dead link
- Reference #49 IMDB listing the song as having been in the movie
- Reference #50 is a dead link
There is nothing per se wrong with any one of these. But the sum total, combined with the fact that in many cases they are used to source some stronger claims, adds up to seeing nearly nothing to support that there is suitable sourcing to back up what is in the article, the "and verifiable" GA criteria. I would be happy to discuss this further, but think that the article would take more work than can be done during the GA review process to meet GA criteria. North8000 (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
GA criteria final checklist
[edit]Well-written
Factually accurate and verifiable
Broad in its coverage
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute
- Meets this criteria North8000 (talk) 12:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Illustrated, if possible, by images
- Meets this criteria. The article has 6 images; there are no non-free images, so no article-specific use rationales are required. North8000 (talk) 00:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Result
[edit]I am forced to non-pass this article. After I did the analysis of references and note the issues I did not go further on the rest of the review. There appear to be not editors involved at the article. I pinging the nominator and they thanked me for reviewing it but did respond on the issues and are not an editor on the article. My questions / noted issues have been open for 27 days with no response. The best to whoever works on this in the future, including in any resubmittal for GA. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)