Talk:Harisu/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
~~I have tagged several dead links and retrieved 3 more from the Internet Archive;~~

Note left as per query below. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
~~Needs updating from 2007~~
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

The article needs updating from 2007 to present. Some referencing issues noted above, on hold for seven days, major contributors and projects will be informed. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I belive the article is now sufficiently compliant to mainatian GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A few of the dead links will be hard to replace. MIAK, the Korean equivalent of the RIAA, closed their site a few months ago, and there has been no real replacement. So there is no online archive of album sales at present. Also, if I remember correctly, Harisu actually hasn't done much outside of additional surgical procedures that have gotten her in the public eye. That may be why the article feels outdated.... However, I don't follow Harisu closely, and I could be wrong about that. :P SKS (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well if there are no sources for album sales then that information will have to removed. If the artist is inactive then that answers my queries about updates. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, that's a bugger if those links can't be replaced. :( Would that be enough to fail the article? I'd be willing to take care of any updates, but if it's going to fail anyway—either through unreferenced sales figues or the removal of that information—then I don't need to trouble myself with any deadlines... PC78 (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leave the dead links in place but put a note in the reference to teh effect that the information was verified on the access date, the site has now been taken down and no archive copy is to be found. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see about those updates then, though SKS2K6 is more or less correct that she hasn't done much in the last two or three years. Any chance you can keep it on hold until Monday? I may not have time for it until the weekend. PC78 (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will take a look on 24 February and decide then. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, sorry it took me a little longer than intended. I've scoured the net and didn't find a great deal to add, but I've included what there was so the article is now up to date, and I've added a note to the dead link refs as suggested. Hopefully that takes care of all concerns, but let me know if there's anything else and I'll take another look later today. Cheers! PC78 (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]