Talk:Singapura cat/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • If external links are used as references, they don't need to be repeated in the EL section.
   • The TICA breed standard in the infobox deadlinks.
   • The lead should be a summary of the entire article, with no original information, so it shouldn't include references except for when they're backing up a direct quote.
   • Could the temperament section be combined with the appearance section? As it is, it's really short, and makes the article look choppy.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   • Web refs need access dates
   • What makes ref #8 (Hartwell) reliable?
   • Refs 4, 5, and 8 need publishers (8 has the work, not the publisher)
   • There are a few spots that need references:

   • Foundation section - last sentence of the first paragraph
   • Appearance section - first paragraph
   • Health section - last sentence of the first paragraph

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   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:

I have a few minor concerns with the MOS compliance and referencing of this article, and so I am putting the article on hold until these issues can be addressed. However, overall, this is a very nice article, and very close to GA status. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the review

1b. I don't agree that EL should not duplicate references. Informative links would be less likely to be overlooked if they are also presented as EL, although this article is a poor example as the ratio of EL to Refs is pretty high. The rest of the problems are fixed

2a/b. The Hartwell source is self published, but she seems to know what she is talking about. She gets minor mentions in some news article too. I'll put it at the reliable source noticeboard and see how it goes. Other issues fixed.--Dodo bird (talk) 02:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks good. Thanks for the Google link to the Harwell articles, IMO mentions in several newspapers/magazines as a source makes her reliable here. If you want to leave in the external links, that's fine...it's just a little odd to see an external links section that's as long as the references section and contains basically all of the same material. But, it's your choice, and everything else has been fixed, so I'm passing this article to GA status. Nice work, and thanks for the prompt response. Dana boomer (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yay. Thanks a lot.--Dodo bird (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)