Talk:The Possum/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
TV Squad is a blog, which are not normally acceptable as references. You will need to prove why this case is exceptional, find a different source or remove the reference and associated lines from the article before becoming a Good Article. The nanny-cam-bear item seems the only important one of the three that use this reference; however, the blog doesn't even actually state that it is a reference, only suggests that it might be. (The LA Times blog entries are OK because of the notability of the LA Times itself.)

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
The only problem I see with the article is the TV Squad reference. Everything else seems fine.

I dropped TV Squad. Thanks for the review! — Hun ter Ka hn 02:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In that case: Pass - AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]