Talk:Kadabra/GA1

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

Reviewer: AerobicFox (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

I'll keep the review short since up front it seems to meet the requirements for GA, and after having read it a few times I cannot really think of any comments to make.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The prose is refreshingly well written. No problems with the Wiki layout either. Some may see the external links from this page to Bulbapedia as a problem, though I do not. I'm glad to see the lead for this article summarizes all the main points of the article as that is something GA nominations often forget.
 * It has been the consensus with the Pokemon Project that Bulbapedia actually does meet the requirements of WP:EL. It states links to be avoided are Links to open wikis, except those with a "substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors."
 * I was unaware of such a discussion. Thanks for informing me.AerobicFox (talk) 03:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Everything is well cited. The Yahoo! source for Geller is currently a deadlink, but that's not really concerning.
 * Hmm. Thats odd. I just used checklinks just the other day, and it was fine. Well, thats too bad.
 * It looks like Yahoo is changing their domain or something, and that it may be back up on a later date. I'd check back in a few months to see if the article has returned.AerobicFox (talk) 03:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * A nice balance of broad and focused content.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Yes.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Little activity. Very stable.
 * 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):
 * Fair use rationale included. No other images leap out at me that could enhance this article without unnecessarily including another fair use image.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This was a quick review. Good job all. AerobicFox (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Commented. Thanks for the review. Blake (Talk·Edits) 03:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, np.AerobicFox (talk) 03:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)