Talk:Fritz the Cat/GA1

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

I shall be reviewing this page against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:01, 20 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.
 * 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.

No obvious problems found when checking against the quick fail criteria, moving on the substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * Well written. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * b (MoS):
 * Conforms with MoS sufficiently. I de-wikilinked Robin Hood as this goes to the folk hero, which doesn't seem right. If I got this wrong, please re-link. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):
 * All on-line references are live. References that I have been able to check are OK. Assume GF for the print sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * I don't think we can categorize ref #9 . It looks like a variety of wiki . On further investigation it appears that Markstein is an authority on comics and graphic novels, so OK for the statement it supports. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * c (OR):
 * No evidence of OR. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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, I believe this meets the Good Article criteria so, I am passing it to GA status. Congratulations.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * OK, I believe this meets the Good Article criteria so, I am passing it to GA status. Congratulations.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * OK, I believe this meets the Good Article criteria so, I am passing it to GA status. Congratulations.