Talk:Boys' Club (Parks and Recreation)/GA1

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

Starting GA Review. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment No quick fail problems. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * 1) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 2) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

Checking against GA criteria

 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * Ref #1 is to a blog/fan site; ref #7 links to a blog aggregator; ref #11 TV squad is a blog. These do not meet the criteria of WP:RS so other sources need to be found. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its scope.
 * a (major aspects):
 * b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * OK, all good except for the referencing issues noted above. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * OK, I accept that The Hill Blog Briefing Room is associated with The Hill, and is written by Michael O'Brien who is a staffer on The Hill, so that should be OK. Congratulations, you have a good article. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I dropped the other two, but I think the #7 reference is OK. Its a blog, but its the blog of an officials newspaper (The Hill) which is a legitimate source. Take a look at it again and see if you agree? —  Hunter  Kahn  ( c )  02:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * OK, all good except for the referencing issues noted above. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * OK, I accept that The Hill Blog Briefing Room is associated with The Hill, and is written by Michael O'Brien who is a staffer on The Hill, so that should be OK. Congratulations, you have a good article. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I dropped the other two, but I think the #7 reference is OK. Its a blog, but its the blog of an officials newspaper (The Hill) which is a legitimate source. Take a look at it again and see if you agree? —  Hunter  Kahn  ( c )  02:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * OK, all good except for the referencing issues noted above. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * OK, I accept that The Hill Blog Briefing Room is associated with The Hill, and is written by Michael O'Brien who is a staffer on The Hill, so that should be OK. Congratulations, you have a good article. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I dropped the other two, but I think the #7 reference is OK. Its a blog, but its the blog of an officials newspaper (The Hill) which is a legitimate source. Take a look at it again and see if you agree? —  Hunter  Kahn  ( c )  02:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I dropped the other two, but I think the #7 reference is OK. Its a blog, but its the blog of an officials newspaper (The Hill) which is a legitimate source. Take a look at it again and see if you agree? —  Hunter  Kahn  ( c )  02:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)