Talk:Kim Possible (character)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SL93 (talk · contribs) 17:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

prose = The prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct.

mos = It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

ref layout = It provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout.

reliable sources = The second reference is an unreliable personal website. The 8th reference is an unreliable website. The 14th reference is an unreliable web zine. For the 32nd reference, eBay should not be used as a source. The 38th reference is not a reliable source. The About page of the website says that anyone can apply to write for the website, no matter their background. The last reference is an unreliable blog. (no)

• Done. All unreliable sources removed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

original research = The last sentence in the section Fictional character biography isn't cited. (no)

• Done. Sentence removed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

broadness = The article is sufficiently broad for an animated character.

focus = The article stays focused without going into too much detail.

neutral = The article is sufficiently neutral.

stable = The article is stable.

free or tagged pics = A valid fair use tag is on the the infobox picture. The second image is properly tagged as free use on Commons.

pics relevant = The images are relevant to the topic. The infobox picture is of the character discussed in the article and the free use picture if of the voice actress.

This will meet all Good Article criteria once the unreliable sources are taken of, which also includes the content that is referenced to them needing to be verified to reliable sources, and the unreferenced sentence being reliably referenced. SL93 (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

There is one remaining problem. Now, the reference for "becoming the longest-running Disney Channel Original Series until it was eventually surpassed by Phineas and Ferb." makes no mention of Phineas and Ferb. SL93 (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Problem solved. Found a new, quite reliable reference for Phineas and Ferb.--Changedforbetter (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The article is now listed. SL93 (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you so much!--Changedforbetter (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)