Talk:Buck Danny/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sadads (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

This article is not suited for a Good article, because it is mostly unsourced, which is one of the main requirements of #1 and WP:Verifiability. I would suggest working on making a citation for almost every piece of information in the article, and reducing the amount of plot summary and focusing on real world details as provided by WP:Reliable sources, Sadads (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)