Talk:Kenny McCormick/GA1

GA Review

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

Staring GA review. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

   • 

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

   • 

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • 

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • 

5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

   • 

No problems found when checking against quick fail criteria, moving on to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • Needs references from reliable sources for the charcters role in veido games Ok cites now added. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   c (OR):

3. It is broad in its scope.

   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:

   • Just needs references for the video games aspect. On hold. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC) Done

   Ok, pass GA