Talk:Adam Mitchell (Doctor Who)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Yunshui (talk · contribs) 08:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

After languishing in mergey purgatory for a couple of years, this article has been expanded and spruced up very nicely.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Prose is good, excellent in places; grammar and spelling are fine; in-universe information is presented correctly. Generally compliant with MOS, however the citation style should be consistent; at present there's a mixture of short citations and named references in the article.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * A good spread of references - possibly a bit heavy on primary sources, but with sufficient third-party sources to provide balance. A couple of sources (Digital Spy and Den of Geek) skirt the outer fringes of WP:RS, but IMHO, fall just within its boundaries. There doesn't appear to be any original research, in fact most sources are quoted verbatim for clarity.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article covers the major information about the character, without becoming bogged-down in in-universe detail.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Neutral POV is maintained in the tone, and multiple critical sources with both positive and negative opinions are accurately represented.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Since being unmerged about a month ago, the article has been stable.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Whilst copyrighted, the infobox image has sufficient fair-use rationale to justify its use in the article.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The inconsistent citation style is easily fixed (I'll do it myself shortly), and since that's the only issue I can see, I'm callling this a Good Article. Nice work! Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 08:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your time, and the review! Eshlare (talk) 09:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)