Talk:Rabbot/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vibhijain (talk · contribs) 12:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead need more detail about the production and the reception.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).	IMDb is not an reliable source. It has many tags like "unreliable source?" and "citation needed", fix theme all.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Fan reviews should not be included. TV.com review can't be included as it not and professional review. Same is the case with IMDb
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Need some more professional reviews.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	~~Will wait for some time for the issues to be solved. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 17:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)~~[reply] 10 days have passed and issues have been not addressed till now. Sorry but this nom is failed.

I hate to barge into this GA review, but the prose is rather substandard. I'll help out a little, but the entire article needs a rather significant copyedit from top to bottom. –MuZemike 04:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is also quite a bit of stuff that are either coming from user-generated information (which are inherently unreliable to use as sources) or are otherwise not in the citations given, which I have tagged as such. The citations and the date formatting in them also need to be consistent, i.e. use the {{citation}}-series templates for all the references and not some. Finally, File:ATHF Rabbot.jpg has a very poor non-free use rationale attached to it and needs to be strengthened a bit. –MuZemike 05:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]