Talk:Tug O'Neale/GA1

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

Reviewer: PrairieKid (talk · contribs) 19:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


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

This article does not currently meet the criteria for a good article.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Had some grammar issues, odd word-choice ("The serial created a backstory consisting..." In this instance, "serial" is used loosely, for one ex.) As I read deeper and deeper, the prose really is not at par. (To give a few examples throughout the text:
 * "Bancks joined the cast of Home and Away in 1992 and he had previously undertaken a drama class which Bancks felt had well prepared him for the role."
 * "because the writers decided upon a 'such a silly name'." [That also shows one repeated grammar error where the period comes after the quotation.]
 * "responsible for developing the connection with viewers; more so with those who had a difficult upbringing empathised with Tug.")
 * It begins improving in the story line section, but is never perfect.
 * I also would consider rearranging the Story Line and Character Development sections. The story line seems to summarize the development.


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * It repeats the same refs a few times, and could definitely use more... With a character article, there is a little more liberty to not use sources, as a lot of it comes straight from watching the show/reading the book. However, it could have either a notes section, or more citations that bring up episodes.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Does go a bit into the actor's life. In the character development, this is good, as it helps us understand what the actor's were going for, but it could be toned down. In the intro and reception, too much focus was on the actor.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * Could have used a screenshot from the show (not just of the actor), or a group-cast photo, but I think it passes.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This just doesn't meet the criteria yet, and I don't think the changes can be made to get it there within a reasonable amount of time.
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This just doesn't meet the criteria yet, and I don't think the changes can be made to get it there within a reasonable amount of time.