Talk:Reb'l Fleur

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Reb'l Fleur/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Aircorn (talk · contribs) 11:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Beginning in April, 2011, an edited 30-second version of the promotional video for Reb'l Fleur was scheduled to be screened in 363 movie theaters for three months.[4] Representatives for the fragrance had planned to hand moviegoers scented cards as they exited the theaters. This is all in the past tense. Is there any information that would allow it to be updated?
  • There is some repitition of information in the Information section. Namely the release dates. It also appears a bit too advertorial, especially with the prices and where it can be brought.
  • You should probably incorporate information from the quote box into the article as it contains important facts about the name. It is hidden away when it is in the quote box.
  • Yahoo and about.com are not usually considered reliable sources, especiallty for reviews. Are there not some better reviews.
  • Not too concerned about the size tag on the lead, it is not too bad considering the article size. You could add a bit more about the background or video if you want. However everything in it should be in the body. The tagline "Bad feels so good" is not. AIRcorn (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Prose is not too bad, but the lead does not summarise the article.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Major concerns over some of the sourcing used here, especially in the reviews. Probably the biggest single issue with the ariticle
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Some repitition in some paragraphs
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Sorry, but the section on Information reads too much like an advertisement
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    No evidence of unstablilty at the talk page or the article history
  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 fair use rational for the fragrence picture is pretty weak, although I don't think it will have much trouble being justified. It just needs something better than one or two word descriptions or purposes. The source should link to the actual picture, not the generic homepage too.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Sorry. I know it has been in the queue a long time, but this simply fails too many criteria. Hopefully you can work through the points raised above and renominate it again in the future.