Talk:Kelly Clarkson/GA1

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

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   b (MoS):

   • The lead should accurately summarize the article, currently it doesn't. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): ; b (citations to

   reliable sources

   ):

   • I fixed a large number of dead links and some redirects using Checklinks. There is one dead link [1], tagged. there are a number of references which are poorly formatted, ref #48 especially. references should be consistent and the predominant style here is to use citation templates, which should mention author (if available), title, publisher and accessdate as a bare minimum. The separate references at the bottom should be moved to a separate section or ELs. Ref #6 [2] is a blog, not RS; ref #9 [3] is a personal website not RS; ref #10 [4] is a fan submitted biog, not RS; ref #11 [5] has no indication of being a RS; ref #35 [6] is a fansite not RS; ref #50 is a forum, not RS; ref #54 is not RS; ref #55 is not RS; ref #64 & #66 about.con - not RS; Some of the separate list of references at the bottom are in fact used in the numbered list. Frankly the reference section is a mess and needs to be thoroughly sorted out.
   • Ref #1 doesn't actually say moved to a more pop rock-oriented style of music. - it says embraces her rock side rather than the pop pageantry that put her on top of the American Idol heap.; ref #2 says 56 million, not nearly 20 million; ref #7 supports the final sentence of the para, we need sources for the rest; I have placed citation tags where needed, there are a large number of unsupported statements. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   c (OR):

3. It is broad in its scope.

   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:

   • OK, this article in its current state is barely C class so I will boldly delist. When issues have been fixed, it can be brought to
     WP:GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
     ]