Talk:The Care Bears Movie/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The infobox is used incorrectly and the article does not properly follow WP:MOSFILM. The prose has quite a few grammatical and stylistic errors and needs a good copy editing. The lead does not properly summarize the article. The reception section has excessive subsectioning, with none long enough to warrant the section. Recommend reordering and removing the divisions. Why is Home video and DVD, as it is now, not with merchandising. It would be better if it were called simply home media and merged with the other merchandise, or better yet joined with the theatrical release details into a distribution section. Why are the Cast members way at the bottom? See also should be above References, and appears to be fairly random. Why are these entries relevant beyond the two Care Bears ones, which are already linked within the article? A three column layout in the references is extremely inappropriate. At most, only two should be used. Some of the references need formatting fixes. Article titles shouldn't be in all caps. The EL section is in need of massive clean out. Please follow WP:EL and remove the fansite, advertising, and other inappropriate links. MGM link should not be bolded. Short quotes should not be broken out from the rest of the prose. Reaction and criticism should just be Reaction.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   There are several unsourced areas of the article, including statements in the Reaction and criticism, Box Office, Awards, Home video and DVD, and Merchandise sections. The article is using several unreliable sources, including IMDB (1, 35, and 36), TV.com (8), Animation Nation forum postings (7), a claimed poster (28 & 34), the Laserdisc database (30), fansites or self-published sources (28) and dead links (30, 31, and 32). Source 2 claims to be from a newspaper article but is missing basic details about it including a link (since it appears to be a web cite). Source 19 is badly formatted and no longer dead. There appears to be some OR in the article, with editors performing a synthesis of multiple sources to draw conclusions rather that sourcing information to a reliable source (particularly in the records and box office sections). Cite 33 is an unsourced note.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Plot is overly long at 1409 words. It should only be 400-500 words for a 76 minute animated movie. The cast list is overly long with too many minor characters. It should have the major ones only. For all the claims of being a record breaker, the reception section seems pretty spartan, with only four reviews included. Where are the rest? The one negative review listed in the reception seems to be given undue weight and attention, in part from the lack of additional reception info.

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):

   The image in the production section is not supported by any sourced content in the article to support the caption claim.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This article fails the Good Article criteria in some pretty major ways. Its review is now on hold for seven days to allow time for fixes to be made. I will keep this page on my watchlist for the duration of the GAR, so any questions and comments should be posted below (not above). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Per above, article has been delisted from GA status. Links were fixed and cast moved slightly, but those were the only fixes made. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)