Talk:The Care Bears' Big Wish Movie/GA1

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

Reviewer: AJona1992 (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article on March 11, 2011 with all my concerns, thank you for being patience with me. Take care, AJona1992 (talk) 14:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * General
 * The lead and plot does not cite any source.


 * Lead
 * The lead, like I said above needs to sources to back up claims.


 * Plot
 * The entire paragraph lacks sources. There seems to be some weasel words (e.g., "The Care Bears are touched by this tale") also the plot is a bit confusing. (e.g., "Everyone is pleased to welcome the new neighbours at first, but things soon get out of control") why?.


 * Cast
 * Seems good, sourced. However, delete the red links.


 * Production
 * Please expand, this section is a bit small.


 * Release
 * Numbers are always written in words: ("Top Kids Rentals list for January 23, 2006, where it ranked 20th") replaced 20th with twenty. Or ("The film peaked on number twenty on Video Business' Top Kids Rentals list for January 23, 2006") Also instead of saying "placed" you should say "peak". Also ("published a Care Bears storybook based on this film"), replaced "this" to "the". Remove this sentence ("One scene in the book involves Wish Bear and the three new Bears grocery shopping; this does not appear in the film") its a run-on. Confusing sentence ("Later in the book, when Messy Bear wishes for everything to be like it used to be, it causes the Bears to travel back to the age of the dinosaurs; in the film, Twinkers just turns Messy Bear into Messy Cub.")

Please address these concerns in seven days. If you need any help at all please don't hesitate on asking. Thank you, AJona1992 (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * User hasn't edited in a while; I'd either fail it or ask the WP:FILM project to see if there's anyone there who can make the appropriate changes. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 16:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate that the nominator does not appear to be active, but I'm not convinced that all of the changes asked for are appropriate for a GA review, and some seem to actually go against guidelines. (eg. "Numbers are always written in words"; this is not the case.) It still may be best to fail it at this time given inactivity & the current backlog, but IMHO it could be counterproductive to ask Film project members to come in and act on these requests.-- Beloved Freak  16:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, now that I've looked over the article and the review, I believe Belovedfreak is right. Leads are not supposed to be sourced except in rare circumstances (blp issues or direct quotes). The plot, likewise is rarely sourced unless something mandates a need. I also disagree on redlink deleting because those people might be article-worthy (i'm not sure as i didn't check), so deleting them would be counterproductive. While production may be small, if that's all there is then that's all we can do. I did go ahead and make some fixes on the reception section, though the numbers actually should remain at 20th and the like; your note only applies to single-digit solitary numbers. (if i said this 9 times, that over there should say nine). It's up to the reviewer on what choice to make, but I disagree with most of the suggestions. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 03:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * All I'm hearing is blah blah blah blah blaaa. First off you guys are talking out of your *** because I don't see any links to verify that what your telling me is the truth. Secondly, I'm going to leave before I get banned AGAIN. Buh-bye and it wasn't a great conversation either lolz. What a Waste of my time, AJona1992 (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:LEADCITE, WP:ORDINAL, WP:REDLINK. No reason to go off just because others disagree. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 03:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Boohoo, just needed you to prove your claims, buh bye. AJona1992 (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with those who think the article is GA worthy, so seeing as AJona has stormed off I'm going to award it the GA myself. cya Coolug (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)