Talk:HouseholdHacker/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am beginning a GA review of this article. Please feel free to leave any questions, comments and other reviews below. Thanks! Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 18:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Pre-GA Questions, Comments and Other Reviews

• The article was recently nominated for deletion, there are very few inbound links, and except for the ipod-onion business, the channel is non-notable with only 2 trivial mentions in reliable sources. The ipod-onion business would make a good DYK, but I don't see a Good Article here. Thatcher 19:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The nominator withdrew the deletion nomination after the article was improved during the AfD. Also, a high level of notability isn't a GA criteria. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

High notability is not required, but criteria 3 is "broad in its coverage." Outside of the ipod-onion video, the coverage in reliable sources is trivial. Thatcher 19:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I interpret criterion three to mean the article broadly covers the topic, not that the topic is broadly covered in outside sources. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 19:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but what I mean is, how can you broadly cover a topic if the sources are so narrow? (To be more specific, who are Spencer and Dylan? how did they meet? Does the channel have legit hacks or only hoaxes? Do the legit hacks work?) Or, what if GA Miss_Meyers (a race horse) had two sources that mentioned her in passing ("Miss Meyers's owners aren't living in the lap of luxury, 'Sometimes she earns enough to pay the rent'") and all the other sources referred to one race? Anyway, I've said my bit. Thatcher 19:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Before I start my review, is there any way a picture or two could be added? Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 17:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

  I could add a still from one of their videos under free use... I will try to do that tonight. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

  I added their logo & a still from the iPod video. If you want me to add another pic, let me know. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• The orphan and citation needed tags should be addressed, as well. The V-Man ^{(Said · Done)} 16:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

  The only cn tag was added two days ago by an IP tagging a self-evident fact. However, I reworded the sentence to make that more clear. The article has been de-orphaned. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

GA REVIEW - Pass

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   The article is well-written in simple, clear language. No grammar or spelling errors I could find.

   B. MoS compliance:

   Article is MOS-compliant.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   References to all sources clearly laid out in the proper section, well-formatted.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Reliable sources used, though less reliance on the YouTube page would have been nice, as well as more third-party sources. Citations placed where appropriate.

   C. No original research:

   No original research apparent.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Addresses why the two and their website/videos are notable, with focus on the most famous video. Notability, however, is not a GA criterion. An article is only going to be as long and detailed as the available sources will allow - while the coverage and sourcing may not be as broad as we'd like, the article is well-sourced given what is available, so it passes this criterion.

   B. Focused:

   Summary style used appropriately.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   No problems with neutrality detected. Information about their videos and whether or not they are accurate presented without notable bias or undue weight.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Article is stable.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Images tagged, concise but adequate fair use rationales provided.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Relevant and appropriately captioned images.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Overall, I believe this article meets the good article critera and I will list it as a good article. While some major additional work would be needed to bring the article up to featured status (including additional sourcing work), it is a quality article. I would suggest a peer review if seeking featured status in the future. Nice work!