Talk:Beauty and the Beast (1991 film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Amadscientist (talk · contribs) 04:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);^[2] and

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial 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.

^[4]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

^[5]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Review

Before conducting an extensive review, and after ensuring you are viewing an unvandalized version, check the article and its edit history for the following basic problems which are sometimes found in GA nominations.

The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.^[7] Done
The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.^[8] Done
There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{citation needed}}, {{clarifyme}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}.) Done
The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars. Done
The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint. Done

Since this is a GA/2 I like to check the last review to see if everything was at least accomplished from that review or what is still needing to be done.

Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined
(b) (MoS)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined

Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined
(c) (original research)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined

Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined
(b) (focused)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined

Result

Result	Notes
Undetermined	The reviewer has no notes here.

Discussion

Please add any related discussion here.

There is a citation needed tag on reference 41. Not sure what it means, but thought I would mention it here in case it was missed. AIRcorn (talk) 11:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awards and nominations section has only (3) citations in the entire section. Academy awards table looks different than the others. Also light on sources in Stage musical (1), which could use a See also: at the top, and Merchandise and spin-offs (0). There are a couple more dead links now as well. Is anyone actively reviewing this? I think it needs some work to be GA. BollyJeff | talk 13:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No active reviewer: the reviewer who signed up on April 19 doesn't appear to have done any work on the review after the initial steps over five weeks ago. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion on Amadscientist's talk page, this is being returned to the reviewing pool, and a new reviewer will eventually start a review under GA2. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Notes

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
^ Small articles that have a single main source may still be adequately referenced without the use of inline citations. Inline citations may not be required for some articles; the criteria name the only six types of material that require inline citations.
^ Articles on controversial topics can be both neutral and stable, but this is only ensured if regular editors make scrupulous efforts to keep the article well-referenced. Note that neutrality does not mean that all points of view are covered equally: instead no point of view should be given undue weight.

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.

[2] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[refs-7] Small articles that have a single main source may still be adequately referenced without the use of inline citations. Inline citations may not be required for some articles; the criteria name the only six types of material that require inline citations.

[npov-8] Articles on controversial topics can be both neutral and stable, but this is only ensured if regular editors make scrupulous efforts to keep the article well-referenced. Note that neutrality does not mean that all points of view are covered equally: instead no point of view should be given undue weight.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]