Talk:Flavas/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: none found Jezhotwells (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * ...and features two style variations packaged with two different outfits. I find this a little confusing - are the two outfits, the same as the style variations?
 * Rewrote as Each doll has a unique face sculpt and a different height, ranging from 10.5 inches to 11 inches. They were each released in two different styles and each style was packaged with two different outfits. a bit clunky but hopefully clearer.
 * Mattel dominated the fashion doll market since the 1959 release of their Barbie doll. Surely "Mattel have dominated"?
 * Reworded for clarity: By the late 1990s Mattel had dominated the fashion doll market since the 1959 release of their Barbie doll.
 * By 2003 the main market were 3-6 years olds... "main market was"?
 * Fixed.
 * The lead could do with a little expansion to meet the executive summary style noted at WP:LEAD. You could mention the improved articulation, and the presse reception in a little more detail, including the positive initial reception from some and the expectations of high sales.
 * Done. I also added a few words on the marketing.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * References check out, RS, no OR
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * I think everything is covered. But I wonder, is there any "nostalgia market".  Do surviving dolls have a high second hand value, perhaps from collectors?
 * I looked into this while writing the article. Ebay pricing seems to suggest that there is some level of cult/collector following going on. But to include that would be decidedly OR as I found nothing in reliable sources to back it up. Most sources after the initial release coverage just briefly mention them as being a failure.
 * 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):
 * Two images used with correct non-free use rationales.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for fixing and clarifying. I am happy to pass this as worthy of GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the review. I will adress the individual concerns above. Siawase (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for fixing and clarifying. I am happy to pass this as worthy of GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the review. I will adress the individual concerns above. Siawase (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)