# Talk:Boys' Club (Parks and Recreation)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Boys' Club (Parks and Recreation)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Starting GA Review. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Quick fail criteria assessment

The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

No quick fail problems. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


### Checking against GA criteria
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): 

b (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): 

b (citations to reliable sources): 
Ref #1 is to a blog/fan site; ref #7 links to a blog aggregator; ref #11 TV squad is a blog.  These do not meet the criteria of WP:RS so other sources need to be found. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)  Done
c (OR): 

It is broad in its scope.
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: 
OK, all good except for the referencing issues noted above. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)  Done
OK, I accept that The Hill Blog Briefing Room is associated with The Hill, and is written by Michael O'Brien who is a staffer on The Hill, so that should be OK.  Congratulations, you have a good article. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I dropped the other two, but I think the #7 reference is OK. Its a blog, but its the blog of an officials newspaper (The Hill) which is a legitimate source. Take a look at it again and see if you agree? — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)