Talk:The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie/GA1

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

Starting review Jezhotwells (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment No quick fail problems. Commencing substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.

Checking against GA criteria

 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * I copy edited the article to remove redundancy.
 * b (MoS):
 * I think the See also section does not add anything. Consider removing it or at least severely pruning.
 * OK See also removed. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):
 * All reference links are valid. Consider removing references from the lead - as long as they are cited elsewhere in the article which I think they are.  I won't make an issue of this,  it may be commented on by others if you go to FA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * All references are to RS
 * c (OR):
 * I see no evidence of OR
 * 1) It is broad in its scope.
 * a (major aspects):
 * The article is broad in scope
 * b (focused):
 * and focussed
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * The article is neutral in tone
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * The article appears stable
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * rationale in place
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * caption OK
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Just consider removing references from lead as long as they are present in the main body of the article and loo at the see also section again. On hold Jezhotwells (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I am happy to pas this as GA status, congratulation. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just consider removing references from lead as long as they are present in the main body of the article and loo at the see also section again. On hold Jezhotwells (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I am happy to pas this as GA status, congratulation. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)