Talk:Carmella Cammeniti/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: one found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linkrot: two found and tagged.[2] Jezhotwells (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
After a number of guest stints during 2003-05, Blair agreed to return on a permanent basis due to her character's popularity, often described as one of the show's most popular characters. Poor prose

Carmella has been characterised as "fun and feisty" in her early stints to "luckless and tortured" towards the end of her duration. poor prose

This was due to the high turn around and the need to quickly fill Goodrem's departure.[2] She was started filming just after she graduated school.[3] She played Carmella on an episodic basis in 2003 and she return for a longer stint in 2004 and briefly in 2005 Basic grammatical errors. Please take this away and get it copy-edited by someone with a good command of written English. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Two dead links as noted above, other references check out, no OR
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
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):
Correct non-free use rationale.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
The WP:GACR require articles to be "reasonably well written", which this article is not. It is in fact very poor and should not have been nominated in this poor state. Please get it properly copy-edited, and peer reviewed before renominating. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]