Talk:Izzie Stevens/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk • contribs • count) 19:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll read through the article now and add any issues below. Miyagawa (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• Storylines: Final line of the third paragraph, along with the fourth paragraph, needs references.
• Storylines: Final paragraph can be removed - it's covered in the final paragraph casting.
• Casting: Link 60th Primetime Emmy Awards on 2008 of 2008 Emmy Awards.
• Relationships: The first quote doesn't have a closing ".
• Reception: The correct Emmy Awards needs to be linked again.
• References: Reference 1 needs to be replaced - it no longer links to the bios page, and even when you click through to the bios page, Izzie has since been removed.
• References: General thing - the date format needs to be the same everywhere.
• Reference: Several dead references - #27, #40, #49, #57 and #60.
• References: Huffington Post isn't a physical newspaper and therefore shouldn't be in italics.

I'll place the nomination on hold for the time being so that the nominator can address those issues. Miyagawa (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for picking the article up for review! I'm not the nominator, but I have been the most frequent contributor over the past few years, so I'll pitch in with addressing the issues that have been raised. I'll get started ASAP, but just to tackle the last point first: the italics guideline was amended back in March and now advises that Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized (such as Salon.com or The Huffington Post). Frickative 22:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I must have missed it. In that case, leave the italics on the HP well alone! Guess I'd better go correct a couple of articles I've been working on...  :) Miyagawa (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll work on it! And thanks for the help Frickative!! TRLIJC19 (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! I won't be around properly until later today, but just to note what I've already done: I removed the final paragraph of storylines, corrected all the Emmy links and found archive urls for all of the dead references except #1 (which I just removed - I don't think it's a contentious fact that Heigl played Izzie, given that every other ref in the article can attest to that) and #60, which so far I can't find a replacement for. Frickative 09:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Great! I believe I've adequately completed the rest of the tasks so whenever you want to conclude the review, Miyagawa, feel free to because I believe it is ready. Thanks for all the help Frickative :) TRLIJC19 (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2011 (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):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

The article meets the criteria and I'm happy to sign it off. Nice work from both of you. Miyagawa (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for reviewing and passing the article as GA! TRLIJC19 (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)