Talk:Tuesday's Child (Holby City)/GA1
GA Review[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: --RAIN the ONE (Talk) 19:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Checklinks okay. Dablinks okay. Refs all formatted correctly with work and publisher fields correct and correct formatting of dates. No edit warring, stable as nominator is the only contributor to the article. Spell checker reveals no errors. The lead is well written and covers the basics of the article clearly. Plot section is kept brief and straight to the point without dangering into reciting every scene. The prose is good. Production section is well written, sourced (checked quite a few of these to make sure everything is said), image of Adrian Edmondson has correct tags and verified for use and the caption is fine.. Quotes used often but broken down for easy reading. The same can be said for the reception section, not bias either, everything is right per WP:MOSTITLE in the prose. You've stuck to the subject in hand, nothing of non importance in there. One example of this would be in production discussing Quarshie's own background and thoughts on plot, but making sure you link it back to the character and prodcution. In some ways the article seems short, but I know that is due to the lack of sources for this type of subject, even more so with the episode in question being from a few years back.. so that's fine. Covered all available areas, those that are really needed IMO for a good article on a TV episode. So therefore with everything I've said and after reading over and over for the last hour, I think it's complete enough for a pass as their were no issues standing. Congrats.
Reviewer: RAIN the ONE (Talk) 19:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)