Talk:Naomi Canning/GA1

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

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 ☯ Jag  uar  ☯ 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? ☯ Jag  uar  ☯ 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: ☯ Jag  uar  ☯ 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:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 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! ☯ Jag  uar  ☯ 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)

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 ☯ Jag  uar  ☯ 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 ☯  Jag  uar  ☯ 16:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem at all, thank you very much Jaguar! - JuneGloom07    Talk  20:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)