Talk:Buck Danny/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sadads (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

This article is not suited for a Good article, because it is mostly unsourced, which is one of the main requirements of #1 and WP:Verifiability. I would suggest working on making a citation for almost every piece of information in the article, and reducing the amount of plot summary and focusing on real world details as provided by WP:Reliable sources, Sadads (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)