Talk:The Legend of Boo-Kini Bottom/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Dr.Swag Lord: Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk · contribs) Hi, I'll review this. 10:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Main concern 1: The short length of the article is concerning to me. After doing a quick search, there are plenty of sources the nominator could have used to broaden the article [1][2][3][4][5]. As of now, the article falls short of criterion 3. It would need to beefed up considerably.

Main concern 2: I find a number of the sources used in this article questionable. The following sources do not appear to have proper editorial control, making them questionable:

• allhallowsgeek (cited 1 time)
• therockfather.com (cited 1 time)
• thejoyofmovies (cited 2 times)
• bubbleblabber (cited 1 time): Per a prior discussion, articles written by Daniel Kurland may be regarded as reliable, but he is not the author in this case.
• showbuzzdaily.com (cited 1 time)

Together, such sources make up almost half of the sources used in the article. Per WP:QF criterion 1, I would need to fail this article as it is a long way from meeting multiple GA criteria. I wish the nominator luck on improving the article in the future! Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.