Talk:Rose and Bernard Nadler/GA1

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

Reviewer: Matthew RD 17:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I shall be conducting the review today. -- Matthew RD 17:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's how the article fairs against the GA criteria;
 * 1) Well written: See notes below.
 * 2) Factually accurate and verifiable: Plenty of sources, all good. Passed
 * 3) Broad in coverage: Passed
 * 4) Neutral: Passed
 * 5) Stable: No edit wars. Passed
 * 6) Images: Non-free images has the appropriate tags. Two free images are fine too. Passed.


 * "Rose Nadler (née Henderson) and Bernard Nadler are fictional characters on the American Broadcasting Company (ABC) television series Lost played by L. Scott Caldwell and Sam Anderson respectively." I'd like a comma somewhere here, preferably "Lost, played by" in the middle, helps the reader to breathe.
 * Link Australia, and cancer (don't have to link the latter, unless you know what type of cancer she has)
 * "which prompts Rose to reveal she is sick with an illness that went into remission but has now returned." Didn't the lead mention she has cancer? I would like that to replace "an illness."
 * "in order to stop him from wasting any more of the time that they had left together". The arc section up to that point was written in present tense, replace "had" with "have", makes a little more sense.
 * "known to the survivors as Others". Do you mean "the Others"?
 * In the beginning of the arc section, I think it would be best to mention Bernard is a dentist and Rose is... whatever it is she did before the island.
 * "Anderson and Caldwell were given a rough idea of how much the would appear at the start of the seasons." replace "the" with "they".

That's all the issues that need to be addressed. Other than that, good work, it was nice to read. I'll put it on hold until the issues are addressed. -- Matthew RD 17:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * PS, sorry it took me some time to review this, as I was busy trying to set up a good article myself. -- Matthew RD 17:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have addressed all the above concerns. No worries about taking a wee bit of time, it wasn't that long and there was no rush :) Sanders11 (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well done, I will pass the article. -- Matthew RD 18:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)