Talk:Eric Cartman/GA1

GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   There are quite a few things that need touching up in the article.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   There are references for some of the sections, but there are lots of unsourced statements and OR in the in pop culture section.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

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):

   I really don't see the point of using a montage, and it probably goes against the image policy because combining several fair use images is generally frowned upon.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   While the article has improved quite a bit from the state it was a few weeks ago, it still has a ways to go. The article focuses too much on the in-universe aspects of his character, but wikipedia is more about real-world information, and there is quite a bit that could be added. I suggest listening to the commentaries, reading some interviews and trying to find more creation/development info on the character. For a model of what to base the article on, see Troy McClure, a FA, or Homer Simpson, Waylon Smithers, Sideshow Bob, Ned Flanders or any other present GAs. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)