Talk:Naomi Canning/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 16:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey I'll take this one. Should have this to you within a day or two ☯ Jaguar ☯ 16:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Jaguar! Interesting timing though, I was just thinking of removing the storylines section as it mostly repeats what is already covered in the development section. Would it be okay to do this now, or should I wait for your review? - JuneGloom07 Talk 17:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I was planning to finish this sooner, so I can complete the review whenever you're finished? ☯ Jaguar ☯ 20:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I've removed the storylines section and added a couple of paragraphs to the development section. I look forward to your review. - JuneGloom07 Talk 02:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry for the delay, real life stuff got in the way! Doing the review now: ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

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

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

• The lead could summarise the article better, I see its only problem is that it does not mention what the critics/viewers thought of her character

• I dislike writing leads so much. I reworded a few things and added a couple of quotes from the reception section. - JuneGloom07 Talk 02:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Same here, but what you done is great here, thanks! ☯ Jaguar ☯ 16:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• "who would stir things up and get viewers talking" - could be better reworded, does this mean that she is provocative and is the basis for disputes?

• Reworded.

• "She also said" - would change this to O'Rielly also said, as her grandmother was mentioned before this sentence

• Done.

• Could the "Early storylines" sub-section be more specific? Was it from 2013-2014 or within the first few months of her coming onto the show?

• First few months. They were literally her first two storylines.

• "which ended when she left him for another guy and he turned to Naomi for comfort" - a little encyclopaedic, how about "man"/"boy"?

Added the character's name instead.

• "Naomi was reunited with her older brother Gary (Damien Richardson)" - no article for Damien Richardson?

Nope, which is a shame as he has appeared in many Australian dramas.

• "During a review of 2014, Digital Spy's Daniel Kilkelly" - I would link Digital Spy for some reference

Done

• Is there anything on what viewers thought of the character that can be put in the reception section? (Not essential, but it is more broad)

• The only thing I could find was something the actress said about the reaction she had received from viewers. - JuneGloom07 Talk 02:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

References

• No dead links here, and the citations are all in the correct places, so this meets the GA criteria

On hold

Sorry this took so long, there was not much to point out here as the issues I had found were only minor. This is article is so far well written, comprehensive and well referenced however the only minor problem I could find with it is that the lead could summarise the article better (acting as a sort of "mini article"). I'll put this on hold for the standard seven days and once they have been addressed it should have no problem passing the GAN. Regards ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Close - promoted

Thanks for addressing all of those concerns and sorry this review took so long, I've been a little busy lately. I think now this article meets the GA criteria as all what was left were some minor prose issues. Anyway well done! Promoting ☯ Jaguar ☯ 16:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem at all, thank you very much Jaguar! - JuneGloom07 Talk 20:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)