Talk:Sarah Barnes/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GRAPPLE X 13:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Fond(ish) memories of watching this show half-cut at dinnertime in my Young Ones-esque uni days, though I'm not sure I remember this character. Ah well.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Prose is a bit inconsistent - especially in the "Casting" section. Some sentences are pretty awkward or broken, such as "Loui's decision to quit matches that of co-worker and Zoë Lister (Zoë Carpenter)" - is that "and" meant to be there? Also, the section reading "Batley had originally wanted to quit the serial in December 2008 when her contract ran out. Kirkwood asked her to stay another six months with the promise of a good exit storyline for Sarah involving Zoe and Lydia Hart (Lydia Kelly).However she made it clear to Kirkwood and new executive producer Lucy Allan that she would leave after." is confusing. After what? If it's after the six months, then why "however"? I think this article needs a bit of a copy-edit, though probably from someone who knows the subject.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
MOS seems fine, there's nothing wrong there.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Everything's cited and backed up, there's no original research creeping in anywhere. I do worry that the vast majority of the citations are from one publisher, though (Digital Spy). Does Channel 4's website perhaps have anything, or even British newspaper or television magazines like Radio Times? It seems fine for this level but if you want to go FA in the future I'd try to go for a good variety of sources.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Broad in coverage, keeps itself encyclopaedic and covers all that's necessary.

B. Focused:
Doesn't drift off-course. There's a danger in TV articles to talk about the show or episodes when it's not the article's subject and this doesn't happen here, which is perfectly correct.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Article is neutral and unbiased.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
History is stable, nothing controversial.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Everything's tagged and sourced grand, but I'd worry about having two non-free use images in the article when you could use just one. I might just be being a bastard about that though.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Images are used appropriately. I would expand the caption of the third image to include the name of the other character in question, though.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
For the time being, I'm going to put this article on hold. I'm a little iffy on several minor points but I feel I might be being unfair, so all I really need is for the article to get a quick copy-edit and I'll be satisfied, since that's what I feel the biggest issue is. If that's sorted out then I have no problem passing the article.|For the time being, I'm going to put this article on hold. I'm a little iffy on several minor points but I feel I might be being unfair, so all I really need is for the article to get a quick copy-edit and I'll be satisfied, since that's what I feel the biggest issue is. If that's sorted out then I have no problem passing the article.

I'm satisfied with the changes, and am going to pass the article.|}}

Comment - I have added four more sources. I have done a copy edit on each of the sections to make it easier to understand. I trimmed the stoylines down more too, I did feel they were a little long and wordy. If you want the second image removing, I will - I guess it is your call though. I always remove them if the reviewers feels it is not needed.Rain the 1 ^BAM 21:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]