Talk:Dylan McAvoy/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BrickHouse337 (talk · contribs) 16:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Fairly well written. Has the page been thoroughly copyedited, by either a contributor or the Guild of Copyeditors? I would suggest a request be made the Guild, but that won't affect the review. A few other concerns:

• The storylines section is the first section. Most of the other soap articles I've seen have the storylines in between development and reception. Is there a specific reason for this? If not, I would suggest it be moved in between development and reception and controversy, just so it matches other soap articles.
• In casting, the first few sentences talk a bit too much about Burton's previous role. While his previous role is a main factor in this article, I don't see it as necessary to include that he won the 1998 Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Supporting Actor for his portrayal of Jason. Need to reword the sentence. Perhaps, "In October 2012, Burton made his final appearance as Jason Morgan on ABC's General Hospital, a role he had portrayed for twenty-one years. The following month, news broke that The Young and the Restless put out a casting call for a character named Dylan, who was slated to "hit the airwaves" in early 2013., etc.
• From what is said on WP:SOAPS, there is no need to include sources in storylines, as watching the series is a good enough source. Given this, I would suggest the sources from the storylines section be removed.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• Looks good; all of the sources are reliable and verifiable; good job.

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Extremely well covered as far as focus. Great job!

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

4. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Overall, I feel the article is generally in GA condition. It should be good to go after my concerns above are addressed; once they are, I will return to pass/fail the article. --Brick House 337 16:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

   The storylines have also been first a lot (Like Poppy Meadow, FA), but I've moved it anyway. Fixed all of the other concerns. Thankyou for taking the review :) Thankyou for being so fast. Arre 02:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

   It's just to match some of the other soap articles (mostly Y&R), which mostly have the storylines further down. The article looks good to go now. Pass

Thankyou so much for reviewing this article, it means a lot! Arre 06:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)