Talk:Adam Mitchell (Doctor Who)/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Yunshui (talk · contribs) 08:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
After languishing in mergey purgatory for a couple of years, this article has been expanded and spruced up very nicely.
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- Prose is good, excellent in places; grammar and spelling are fine; in-universe information is presented correctly. Generally compliant with MOS, however the citation style should be consistent; at present there's a mixture of short citations and named references in the article.
- a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- A good spread of references - possibly a bit heavy on primary sources, but with sufficient third-party sources to provide balance. A couple of sources (Digital Spy and Den of Geek) skirt the outer fringes of WP:RS, but IMHO, fall just within its boundaries. There doesn't appear to be any original research, in fact most sources are quoted verbatim for clarity.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- The article covers the major information about the character, without becoming bogged-down in in-universe detail.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Neutral POV is maintained in the tone, and multiple critical sources with both positive and negative opinions are accurately represented.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- Since being unmerged about a month ago, the article has been 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):
- Whilst copyrighted, the infobox image has sufficient fair-use rationale to justify its use in the article.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- The inconsistent citation style is easily fixed (I'll do it myself shortly), and since that's the only issue I can see, I'm callling this a Good Article. Nice work! Yunshui 雲水 08:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
- Thanks very much for your time, and the review! Eshlare (talk) 09:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)