Talk:Travel Bug/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The article does not meet the standard of "reasonably well written." Example:

   A travel bug is an item which is trackable which looks similar to a dog tag.

   A travel bug can be attached to another item by use of the chain on the travel bug if required, examples of such items include teddy bears, toy cars, or golf balls.

   During the registration of the bug on the website, the owner may create a assign a name and also create a purpose or mission for the bug.

   Travel bugs move from cache to cache by Geocachers picking up the bug and physically moving them.

   There is no obligation to pick up a bug from a cache as Geocachers can simply "discover" the bug on the website. This is where the cacher finds the travel bug and logs it as remaining in the cache it is already in and does not move it on.

   Each year from 2004 to 2007, Jeep had sponsored a contest, ...

   but every finder was entered into a drawing for a new Jeep and other prizes.

   An advertising campaigned promoting the travel bugs with adverts in such magazines as Women's Health.

   I think this needs a thorough copy-edit by someone with a good command of plain English; you may be able to get help at WP:Guild of copyeditors

   The hatnote: For the Travel Channel's "Travel Bug", see Travel Channel#Promotion. is linked to a non-existent section on the target page.

   The lead is sparse and does not fully cover the article.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Ref #9 [1] is a wiki not a reliable source.

   Ref #10 facebook is not a reliable source.

   geocaching.com appears to be a wiki and thus is not an RS

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   This article does little to explain the subject. This is partly due to poor prose, but also it does not appear the cover the subject thoroughly. It would perhaps be better suited as a section of the geocaching page as it stands. Howver if futher developed it may have the potential to become a good artcile.

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:

   This article is currently a long way away from meeting the good article criteria. It needs comprehensive re-writing to become a good example of plain English, further expansion is required to explain the subject, dimensions of the dog-tag, etc. Please take it to WP:Peer review before re-nominating. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)