Talk:Naomi Canning

Naomi Canning has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: January 16, 2015. (Reviewed version).

Soap Operas

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soap Operas, an effort to build consistent guidelines for and improve articles about soap operas and telenovelas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit WikiProject Soap Operas, where you can join the project and/or the discussion.Soap OperasWikipedia:WikiProject Soap OperasTemplate:WikiProject Soap Operassoap opera articles

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters 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.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Australia: Television Low‑importance

	Australia portal Naomi Canning is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian television (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Naomi Canning/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 16:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I'll take this one. Should have this to you within a day or two ☯ Jaguar ☯ 16:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jaguar! Interesting timing though, I was just thinking of removing the storylines section as it mostly repeats what is already covered in the development section. Would it be okay to do this now, or should I wait for your review? - JuneGloom07 Talk 17:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. I was planning to finish this sooner, so I can complete the review whenever you're finished? ☯ Jaguar ☯ 20:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've removed the storylines section and added a couple of paragraphs to the development section. I look forward to your review. - JuneGloom07 Talk 02:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and sorry for the delay, real life stuff got in the way! Doing the review now: ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Initial comments[edit]

The lead could summarise the article better, I see its only problem is that it does not mention what the critics/viewers thought of her character

I dislike writing leads so much. I reworded a few things and added a couple of quotes from the reception section. - JuneGloom07 Talk 02:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, but what you done is great here, thanks! ☯ Jaguar ☯ 16:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"who would stir things up and get viewers talking" - could be better reworded, does this mean that she is provocative and is the basis for disputes?

Reworded.

"She also said" - would change this to O'Rielly also said, as her grandmother was mentioned before this sentence

Done.

Could the "Early storylines" sub-section be more specific? Was it from 2013-2014 or within the first few months of her coming onto the show?

First few months. They were literally her first two storylines.

"which ended when she left him for another guy and he turned to Naomi for comfort" - a little encyclopaedic, how about "man"/"boy"?

Added the character's name instead.

"Naomi was reunited with her older brother Gary (Damien Richardson)" - no article for Damien Richardson?

Nope, which is a shame as he has appeared in many Australian dramas.

"During a review of 2014, Digital Spy's Daniel Kilkelly" - I would link Digital Spy for some reference

Done

Is there anything on what viewers thought of the character that can be put in the reception section? (Not essential, but it is more broad)

The only thing I could find was something the actress said about the reaction she had received from viewers. - JuneGloom07 Talk 02:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

No dead links here, and the citations are all in the correct places, so this meets the GA criteria

On hold[edit]

Sorry this took so long, there was not much to point out here as the issues I had found were only minor. This is article is so far well written, comprehensive and well referenced however the only minor problem I could find with it is that the lead could summarise the article better (acting as a sort of "mini article"). I'll put this on hold for the standard seven days and once they have been addressed it should have no problem passing the GAN. Regards ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close - promoted[edit]

Thanks for addressing all of those concerns and sorry this review took so long, I've been a little busy lately. I think now this article meets the GA criteria as all what was left were some minor prose issues. Anyway well done! Promoting ☯ Jaguar ☯ 16:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all, thank you very much Jaguar! - JuneGloom07 Talk 20:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Naomi Canning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]