Talk:Beauty and the Beast (1991 film)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Amadscientist (talk · contribs) 04:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Criteria
 Good Article Status - Review Criteria   		A good article is&mdash;  :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

:
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ; and
 * (c).

:
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

. . :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).



Review
Before conducting an extensive review, and after ensuring you are viewing an unvandalized version, check the article and its edit history for the following basic problems which are sometimes found in GA nominations.


 * 1) The article completely lacks reliable sources – see 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, POV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, citation needed, clarifyme, or similar tags. (See also QF-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.✅

Since this is a GA/2 I like to check the last review to see if everything was at least accomplished from that review or what is still needing to be done.

 <li>:</li>

<li>:</li>

<li>:</li>

<li>.</li>

<li>.</li>

<li>:</li>

</ol>

Discussion
Please add any related discussion here.
 * There is a citation needed tag on reference 41. Not sure what it means, but thought I would mention it here in case it was missed. AIR corn (talk) 11:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Awards and nominations section has only (3) citations in the entire section. Academy awards table looks different than the others. Also light on sources in Stage musical (1), which could use a See also: at the top, and Merchandise and spin-offs (0). There are a couple more dead links now as well. Is anyone actively reviewing this? I think it needs some work to be GA. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  13:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No active reviewer: the reviewer who signed up on April 19 doesn't appear to have done any work on the review after the initial steps over five weeks ago. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Per discussion on Amadscientist's talk page, this is being returned to the reviewing pool, and a new reviewer will eventually start a review under GA2. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)