Talk:Wooly Willy

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 13, 2009	Good article nominee	Not listed

Toys Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Toys, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of toys on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ToysWikipedia:WikiProject ToysTemplate:WikiProject ToysToys articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Toys To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Barbie Queen of the Prom, Eve The Second Genesis CCG, More...
Assess : Rate the Unassessed Toys articles and Unknown-importance Toys articles.
Expand : Expand the doll pages, Expand Larami article
Infobox : Toys articles needing infoboxes
Photo : Request images that are needed from Wikipedia requested photographs of toys to included in each articles.
Stubs : work on stubs in Category:Toy stubs
Other : * Tag the talk pages of Toys-related articles with the {{WikiProject Toys}} banner.
- Help out with articles placed in Category:Toys articles needing attention

Brands C‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dapper Dan[edit]

This 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)[reply]

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

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

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

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

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

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)[reply]

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.

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):
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)[reply]

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.

GA[edit]

Not 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)[reply]