Talk:The Transformers (IDW Publishing)/GA1

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

Starting GA Sweeps reassessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):
 * There are several dead links found using this tool ✅
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * References from {http://transfans.net/} not allowable as this is a fan site; the forum section of newsarama {http://forum.newsarama.com/} likewise; the allspark {http://www.allspark.com/} likewise; the forum section of IDW publishing {http://forum.idwpublishing.com/} likewise; Simon Fuhrman blog Ok as he is the established expert on himself; One Shall Stand {http://www.oneshallstand.com/aboutus.html} is also a fansite. These cannot be deemed as WP:RS within Wikipedia's criteria.  If you can't find RS for the statements then they shouldn't be there. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * c (OR):
 * 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 am going to put this on hold for seven days so that these issues can be fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * On the sources you say "newsarama {http://forum.newsarama.com/} likewise" but that is actually fine as a source (it is one of the leading comics news, reviews and interviews site and received numerous awards and is used as a source on hundreds of comic book articles, including GA and above) - at the time Newsarama was using forum software as their publication medium, they have since moved to a bespoke system but either way is fine when the reference is to the main post, the comments are clearly another issue (although there are occasionally posts by creators explaining a point, but these would have to be judged on a case-by-case basis). (Emperor (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC))
 * OK, I take your point on re-examining that citation as it it is by one of the publication's editors. I have retrieved an archive version of citation #6. All OK, keep GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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 am going to put this on hold for seven days so that these issues can be fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * On the sources you say "newsarama {http://forum.newsarama.com/} likewise" but that is actually fine as a source (it is one of the leading comics news, reviews and interviews site and received numerous awards and is used as a source on hundreds of comic book articles, including GA and above) - at the time Newsarama was using forum software as their publication medium, they have since moved to a bespoke system but either way is fine when the reference is to the main post, the comments are clearly another issue (although there are occasionally posts by creators explaining a point, but these would have to be judged on a case-by-case basis). (Emperor (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC))
 * OK, I take your point on re-examining that citation as it it is by one of the publication's editors. I have retrieved an archive version of citation #6. All OK, keep GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I am going to put this on hold for seven days so that these issues can be fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * On the sources you say "newsarama {http://forum.newsarama.com/} likewise" but that is actually fine as a source (it is one of the leading comics news, reviews and interviews site and received numerous awards and is used as a source on hundreds of comic book articles, including GA and above) - at the time Newsarama was using forum software as their publication medium, they have since moved to a bespoke system but either way is fine when the reference is to the main post, the comments are clearly another issue (although there are occasionally posts by creators explaining a point, but these would have to be judged on a case-by-case basis). (Emperor (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC))
 * OK, I take your point on re-examining that citation as it it is by one of the publication's editors. I have retrieved an archive version of citation #6. All OK, keep GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)