| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wooly Willy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Wooly Willy was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Dapper Dan
editThis page really shouldn't be redirected from "Dapper Dan", because that is the name of what was(is?) an extremely popular toy made by playskool. It was a stuffed doll that was supposed to teach children how to dress by snapping its vest buttons, buttoning his coat, zippering his pants zipper and tying his shoelaces.
Removed the Dapper Dan Band entry, as it has nothing to do with the toy. --Enigmaedge 07:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
GA Review
edit- This review is transcluded from Talk:Wooly Willy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
- GA review (see here for criteria)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS): 
- The most critical part, the first sentence, it not well enough written to actually explain what the toy is. Whithout looking at the references, I was not able to understand it. Also, the article is not
- a (prose):
===Addressed. ItsLassieTime (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- Book references not in {{cite book}} template.
===Corrected. ItsLassieTime (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ref 3 is not a reliable source, since it does not have a publisher or author, nor any way to establish credibility. Private web sites are never reliable sources, unless it can be established that the author is a professional expert at the topic at hand.
===Addressed. ItsLassieTime (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- Generally, this article is very short; yet the references seem to have amble additional information about it. I would recommend expanding the article to achieve GA. Ideas include: sales figures, halt of production dates, more on the development, reception, a technical description of they toy, etc. Researching items from the 1950s is difficult, but the use of offline research should make it doable.
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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):
- The article is not illustrated. The GA requires that, as long as plausible to make a available, an image should be included.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
Historical image uploaded. ItsLassieTime (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- This article falls way short of the GA criteria. It is too short, lacks sections, has no image, and does not use reliable sources.
- Pass/Fail:
GA
editNot going to do an official GA review, but I would urge you to withdraw this. At 1800 characters, it's barely the minimum length required by DYK (a much less strict project than GA) and most of the sections are just one or two sentences. On top of that, it only has two or three sources, which is far less than most GAs have. Furthermore, it's almost totally orphaned; the only pages that link to it are assessment projects and redirects, no actual articles. I don't think this will be able to pass GA without a total rewrite/expansion. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)