Talk:Pixar/GA1

GA review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs a little work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Well done.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

• For the Early history section, does Reference 1 cover this sentence ---> "At NYIT, the researchers worked on an experimental film called The Works; it was never released for public viewing"?
• Is there a source for Steve Jobs leaving Apple?
• Same section, "The sale reflected George Lucas' desire to stop the cash flow losses associated with his 7 year research projects associated with new entertainment technology tools, as well as his company's new focus on creating entertainment products rather than tools" needs a source.
• Does Reference 4 cover all in paragraph 4?
• Also, does Reference 5 cover everything for paragraph 5?
• Are there any more sources available to back the information in the Disney and Acquired by Disney section.
• For the locations section, it would be best to add the DVD ref., for all the films that have "Pizza Planet" and "Dinoco", as the cameos the "companies" take in the Pixar films.

1. C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

3. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   "Pixar wanted complete financial freedom", sounds like POV, it would be best for it to be re-written.

4. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

5. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article! Also, contact me if the above statements are answered.

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

All done! Gary King (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to Gary King for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats on your hard work. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)