Talk:Pound Puppies and the Legend of Big Paw/GA1

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

This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Article is not properly following WP:MOS-FILMS. Sections are misnamed and misordered, characters section needs to be removed with voice actors moved into plot as it has no sourced character development info, music section shouldn't generally have a soundtrack listing, but if kept needs to be properly formatted. References not formatted consistently. Whole article needs checking for tonal issues and basic copy editing. Plot summary is too long at 853. For a 76 minutes animated kids film, no valid reason to be going beyond 400-500. Infobox needs clean up. Lead is not a proper summary of the article.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * IMDB is not a reliable source, and certainly not a user comment. The Frank Weller Homepage is a fansite and not a reliable source. Voice chasers is a user edited site and not a reliable source. Change The Animated Movie guide only source to its actual book version. A few unsourced statements throughout the article. Many many news sources listed, but lacking links and/or publication details such as page number, author, etc.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Reception section is too short, and seems unbalanced and deliberately aimed at being heavily negative. Needs NPOV check and expansion to include all available reliable reception, and expansion from existing sources to give more holistic representation of their reviews. Excessive character/plot summary.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * See #3.
 * 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):
 * Excessive non-free images used for decoration and not supported by reliably sourced critical commentary. All images need removing except the poster in the infobox. Infobox poster needs updated FUR.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * If the issues noted above are not addressed, and article is not brought back up to GA standards by June 27, 2009, it will be delisted. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If the issues noted above are not addressed, and article is not brought back up to GA standards by June 27, 2009, it will be delisted. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Per the notes above, this article has been delisted. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)