Talk:Rachel Green/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 08:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!--Changedforbetter (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very sorry for the delay, more RL stuff going on than expected. I will try go get this done in the next couple of days. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go:

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

To me, there is very little wrong with this article. The following issues I found:

There are three dead links, as can be seen here. They should be replaced.

I could only find two. They've been removed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you maybe move her full name into the infobox and reference it there?

From what I've gathered based on past fictional character good articles, the character's full name, IE characters with known middle names, is generally excluded from the infobox and included and cited in the intro paragraph. For example, Rachel Berry and Kim Possible (character).--Changedforbetter (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough.

In "Role", the references suddenly stop after the third paragraph. Even though plot summaries don't necessarily need to be sourced, it would be great if you could just name the respective episodes as references, such as you did earlier.

Added a few more episodes as citations.--Changedforbetter (talk) 05:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it. Sorry this took so long. Cheers, Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All issues have been addressed sooooo I think I'm done :)--Changedforbetter (talk) 05:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me now. It's a pass! You might want to take a look at the last edit by an IP. I find it strange, but I'll leave the decision to you if you want to revert it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]