Talk:Emilie de Ravin/GA1

GA Review

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:
In the Career section, "In 2005" and "In 2006" it would be best if there was a comma placed after 2005 and 2006.
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
In the lead, fix the link to "Maxim" and italicize it, since its a magazine and per here. In the Career section, fix the link to "Variety" and italicize it. Same section, italicize the mentions of "Onimusha" and "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus". The article has a red link, if it doesn't link to an article, un-link it, per here.
Check. Also, since she's Australian, the dates like this ---> "January 1, 2005", are gonna have to be formatted, per here and here. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 14:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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):
In the Career section, is there a source for this ---> "Emilie de Ravin's first major role was a recurring part as Curupira in the TV series BeastMaster"?
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
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):
Is it neutral?
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:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think everything has been taken care of. Thanks for the review. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 01:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to Cornucopia for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 14:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]