Talk:Babe Smith/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sagecandor (talk · contribs) 21:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First comment at quick look is the Storylines section looks way too big. Especially when depending on unsourced thoughts as WP:PLOTSUMMARY. Please try to cut that down in size a bit. Will read through and post up a review later. Sagecandor (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sagecandor: Thank you for taking on the review - I am aware that the article is big so thank you. I will look into condensing the storylines section, but it will have to be tomorrow now. However, it may not be overly condensed as in over three years, the character was involved in quite a lot of storylines. Soaper1234 - talk 21:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a try, keep me posted. Sagecandor (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of June 15, 2017, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: I left a comment above about the size of the Storylines section. I see this was addressed by the GA nominator [1]. I'm quite happy to see the improvement. That was my only issue with the article.

2. Verifiable?: Everything cited in the article to in-line citations, save the Storylines section, which is okay per WP:PLOTSUMMARY for non-controversial articles and subject matter.

3. Broad in coverage?: Article is in-depth and very thorough. Covers all major aspects of topic. Subjects discussed include Introduction, Storylines, Creation and development, Casting and introduction, Characterisation, Relationships, Carter family, Sylvie Carter, Abi Branning, Other relationships, Baby farming, Blackmail and feud with Claudette Hubbard, Revenge attack, Departure, Reception. On 2nd thought, for ease of readability, suggest breaking up Storylines section into smaller subsections within the parent section.

4. Neutral point of view?: All assertions backed up to cited sources. Article written in a neutral tone. Facts given in a matter of fact manner. Article satisfies NPOV.

5. Stable? [2] major edit was at GA Reviewer direct suggestion, so that's good. No ongoing edit history issues going back a month. No ongoing talk page problems.

6. Images?: Reviewed all the images. 4 images used. 3 free use. 1 fair use. 3 free use licenses all check out okay. Fair use image has good fair use rationale at File:Babe Smith.png.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it Good article reassessed. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Sagecandor (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]