Talk:Wooly Willy/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. 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

===Addressed. ItsLassieTime (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

1. Book references not in {{cite book}} template.

===Corrected. ItsLassieTime (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

1. 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)

1. 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.

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

2. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

3. 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.

Historical image uploaded. ItsLassieTime (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

1. 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.