Talk:Miles Copeland (Home and Away)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bbmaniac (talk · contribs) 06:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary Review

The Wikipedia article, Miles Copeland (Home and Away) is a well written, well sourced, informative and stable page which gets to the point, includes a variety of information and seems to have community support in its development. Miles Copeland is a departing character on Australian Seven Network soap opera Home and Away, played by Josh Quong-Tart.

To begin with, anything requiring references is referenced; particularly in the 'Creation and Casting', 'Character Development' and 'Reception' categories which, despite the possibility of finding little verifiable information, are all thorough with plenty of angles. In fact, the 'Reception' sub-section features both negative and positive viewpoints of the character. The 'Character Development' section starts off with a quote from Channel 5; the UK broadcaster of the show, which acts as a suitable abstract of some of the information contained in the section. In total, the page includes 49 different yet properly filed references.

The article, as mentioned, is also well written. At times, the information can be chunky, however the manner in which it is written allows the reader to stay on track. There is no 'ramble' and the flow of the article is progressive. Spelling and grammar is also impeccable. Despite all this, there is strong stability in the article with no edit wars, no conflict of interests and pretty clear consensus that the information is acceptable and easy to build upon.

Bias does not seem to be a problem in the article.

Despite all this, there is room for improvement. More references are needed in the introduction, or possibly a clean up as at times, it can become chunky and in the scheme of the entire article, a little repetitive.

The article includes two pictures, one in an info box and the other, a stand alone. More visuals, especially in the storyline section is needed.

But in reading the article, I believe it is suitable for Good Article status based on its stability, non-bias approach, informity and credibility.

Bbmaniac (talk) 06:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bbmaniac, thank you for taking the time to review this article. I was wondering if this is your first Good Article Review? You have brought up a few points that don't appear to be part of the GA requirement, like the inclusion of more images in the storylines section. I haven't looked yet, but there may not be any free images available related to the information and we would need a very good reason for including non-free images. References are not required for the lead (WP:LEADCITE), though the quotes could be sourced if you would like. Also, I'm a little unsure of what you mean by "chunky", are you talking about the length of the paragraphs? - JuneGloom Talk 21:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed you didn't mention the two dead links we have, I'll get them fixed right away. - JuneGloom Talk 22:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah thanks for taking the review. So is that a pass or a hold? Anything you think that needs fixing? Were willing to get started straight away.RaintheOne ^BAM 22:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June; while the inclusion of pictures is not listed as an 'immediate problem', which it isn't, rule six of the WP:WIAGA states that the page should be 'illustrated'. It is illustrated, but in this case, I believe more illustrations would benefit the quality of the page. But yes, this is my first review, so thanks for being kind. Thank you also for fixing the dead links. I did notice one of them; but I completely forgot to put it in the review. I do believe this article should be of Good Article Status and any further improvements would just heighten its quality. Bbmaniac (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]