Talk:Wooly Willy/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

===Addressed. ItsLassieTime (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The most critical part, the first sentence, it not well enough written to actually explain what the toy is. Whithout looking at the references, I was not able to understand it. Also, the article is not


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):

===Corrected. ItsLassieTime (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Book references not in cite book template.

===Addressed. ItsLassieTime (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref 3 is not a reliable source, since it does not have a publisher or author, nor any way to establish credibility. Private web sites are never reliable sources, unless it can be established that the author is a professional expert at the topic at hand.


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Generally, this article is very short; yet the references seem to have amble additional information about it. I would recommend expanding the article to achieve GA. Ideas include: sales figures, halt of production dates, more on the development, reception, a technical description of they toy, etc. Researching items from the 1950s is difficult, but the use of offline research should make it doable.

Historical image uploaded. ItsLassieTime (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 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):
 * The article is not illustrated. The GA requires that, as long as plausible to make a available, an image should be included.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * The article is not illustrated. The GA requires that, as long as plausible to make a available, an image should be included.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This article falls way short of the GA criteria. It is too short, lacks sections, has no image, and does not use reliable sources.