Talk:Kelly Clarkson/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of July 25, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   b (MoS):

   • The lead should accurately summarize the article, currently it doesn't. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): ; b (citations to reliable sources):

   • I fixed a large number of dead links and some redirects using Checklinks. There is one dead link [1], tagged. there are a number of references which are poorly formatted, ref #48 especially. references should be consistent and the predominant style here is to use citation templates, which should mention author (if available), title, publisher and accessdate as a bare minimum. The separate references at the bottom should be moved to a separate section or ELs. Ref #6 [2] is a blog, not RS; ref #9 [3] is a personal website not RS; ref #10 [4] is a fan submitted biog, not RS; ref #11 [5] has no indication of being a RS; ref #35 [6] is a fansite not RS; ref #50 is a forum, not RS; ref #54 is not RS; ref #55 is not RS; ref #64 & #66 about.con - not RS; Some of the separate list of references at the bottom are in fact used in the numbered list. Frankly the reference section is a mess and needs to be thoroughly sorted out.
   • Ref #1 doesn't actually say moved to a more pop rock-oriented style of music. - it says embraces her rock side rather than the pop pageantry that put her on top of the American Idol heap.; ref #2 says 56 million, not nearly 20 million; ref #7 supports the final sentence of the para, we need sources for the rest; I have placed citation tags where needed, there are a large number of unsupported statements. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

   c (OR):

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   b (focused):

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • OK, this article in its current state is barely C class so I will boldly delist. When issues have been fixed, it can be brought to WP:GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)