Talk:Flavas/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: none found Jezhotwells (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   ...and features two style variations packaged with two different outfits. I find this a little confusing - are the two outfits, the same as the style variations?Y

   Rewrote as Each doll has a unique face sculpt and a different height, ranging from 10.5 inches to 11 inches. They were each released in two different styles and each style was packaged with two different outfits. a bit clunky but hopefully clearer.

   Mattel dominated the fashion doll market since the 1959 release of their Barbie doll. Surely "Mattel have dominated"?Y

   Reworded for clarity: By the late 1990s Mattel had dominated the fashion doll market since the 1959 release of their Barbie doll.

   By 2003 the main market were 3-6 years olds... "main market was"?Y

   Fixed.

   The lead could do with a little expansion to meet the executive summary style noted at WP:LEAD. You could mention the improved articulation, and the presse reception in a little more detail, including the positive initial reception from some and the expectations of high sales.Y

   Done. I also added a few words on the marketing.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   References check out, RS, no OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I think everything is covered. But I wonder, is there any "nostalgia market". Do surviving dolls have a high second hand value, perhaps from collectors?Y

   I looked into this while writing the article. Ebay pricing seems to suggest that there is some level of cult/collector following going on. But to include that would be decidedly OR as I found nothing in reliable sources to back it up. Most sources after the initial release coverage just briefly mention them as being a failure.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

   Two images used with correct non-free use rationales.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

   OK, thanks for fixing and clarifying. I am happy to pass this as worthy of GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

   Thank you very much for the review. I will adress the individual concerns above. Siawase (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)