Talk:Silver fox (animal)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 21:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article for GA status. It's nice to see students working on articles like this! I'm a little concerned, however, that the comments on the talk page from User:Bibliomaniac15, left on January 5, have not been addressed. Is anyone still interested in working on this article? I'll have my initial thoughts up in a bit. Dana boomer (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2013 (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):

   • What is the reasoning behind having this article and Domesticated silver fox as separate articles? There seems to be a lot of overlap between the two.
   • Why does the article have both a "Description" and a "Breed standards" section? This isn't a breed, for one thing, and for another, the breed standards section is nothing more than a large blockquote.
   • The In culture section feels like a bunch of disjointed, unconnected trivia, some of which (like the fourth point) feels non-notable.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • Citation needed tag in Description section.
   • What makes ref #20 (Urban Dictionary) a reliable source?

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The points in the prose and references sections above need to be addressed first. I'm going to put the article on hold for a few days to see if anyone responds. If changes are made to address the above points, then I'll go through the article in more detail. Dana boomer (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

   Due to the lack of progress on this article over the past few days, I am failing this article's good article nomination. Dana boomer (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)