Talk:Tucker McCall/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: BrickHouse337 (talk · contribs) 01:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will begin this review once the GA review for Chloe Mitchell has concluded. Cheers, --Brick House 337 01:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    One minor concern that I noticed: In the lead, it reads, "The character was slated to be a new businessman and billionaire, leading to speculation that Tucker would become a replacement character for icon Victor Newman (Eric Braeden), whose future with the series was in jeopardy at the time." It sort of sounds like Victor Newman's future was in jeopardy at the time, which is untrue, it was Eric Braeden's future who was in jeopardy. So maybe reword it to something like, "The character was slated to be a new businessman and billionaire, leading to speculation that Tucker would become a replacement character for icon Victor Newman (Eric Braeden), as Braeden's future with the series was in jeopardy at the time." No other concerns, everything looks good. Great job!
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Fairly well covered as far as focus.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Overall, the article is in good article condition. I don't see any further issues holding it back. Sorry for the slight delay for the review. Pass. --Brick House 337 03:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BrickHouse! Creativity97 03:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But plot summary very out-of-date! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.35.136.209 (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]