Talk:Susan Kennedy/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 15:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the Character creation and casting section, "They felt that they needed to take the show back to it's roots" ---> "They felt that they needed to take the show back to its roots". In the Relationships section, "Susan and Karl were childhood sweethearts who married before they both graduated from university", does the university have a name? Same section, is "Journalist" supposed to be capitalized? In the 1994 section, is a comma missing after Karl begins a relationship with Izzy Hoyland?
I have to thank User:Raintheone for sorting the prose issues, he got to them before me. The university doesn't have a name from what I can find. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 16:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check, and it's fine with the university bit, I just wondered if whether or not the university had a name.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
References 17, 19, and 29 have different url link paths, so you might want to update that.
Done For some reason the BBC always comes up as having a different url link path, when it's actually fine. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 16:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check, and I know I've experienced problems like that with other sources.

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Not that much to do. If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 15:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, I'll get started on the points you raised now. :) - JuneGloom07 Talk? 16:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome for it, just repaying a favor, and when you're done with the stuff above, I'll come back and give it a check. :) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank Raintheone and JuneGloom for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 17:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]