Talk:Maya Lahan/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GRAPPLE X 12:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

First time reviewing a character article, but thankfully I don't have to worry about BLP since it's still fictional. :P

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Prose quality seems fine to me, nothing to complain about. Does not get bogged down as in-universe, which is good.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   MOS is fine, and the use of box quotes looks good.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Everything is sourced nicely.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Sources seem reliable (though perhaps BBC's website would have material that could be cited, to give an accessible reference for readers who don't have access to the footage cited?)

   C. No original research:

   Everything's verified and backed up, no original research.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Hits everything it needs to, gives a nice level of depth.

   B. Focused:

   Stays on topic, does not drift to wider discussion of the show or anything beyond the character in question.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Neutral and unbiased.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Stable and uncontroversial.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Sole image illustrates the article well, and the non-free use rationale seems kosher to me.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Image is appropriate and used correctly.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   All things considered, I've no other option but to pass this as a good article. Well done.