Talk:Molly Dawes/GA1

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FishLoveHam (talk | contribs) at 08:04, 5 October 2024 (→‎GA Review). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Latest comment: 3 days ago by FishLoveHam in topic GA Review

GA Review

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

Nominator: FishLoveHam (talk · contribs) 19:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: OlifanofmrTennant (talk · contribs) 13:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC) This has been assigned to me from the GARCReply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
    So the lead paragraph uses series in refrences to "Our Girl series one". It once again used series in references to "Our Girl" this seems confusing. Consider altering wording
      Done FishLoveHam (talk) 07:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The story line section seems a little; is there any way to slim that down?
      Not done What? FishLoveHam (talk) 07:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    "When he dies, the ASF become involved to track down Badrai." grammar
      Done I'm not sure what this is asking me to do, but I changed "to track" to "in tracking". FishLoveHam (talk) 07:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    IMO the reception over uses quotes
      Done Paraphrased some FishLoveHam (talk) 07:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    "His colleague, Thomas Ling" reword this, preferably mention he was also writing for radio times.
      Done FishLoveHam (talk) 07:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    "Pirbright, Surrey" both places are linked separately see MOS:GEOLINK
      Done FishLoveHam (talk) 07:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (reference section):   b (inline citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):   d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
    Can use explain the use of Daily Mirror (WP:DAILYMIRROR), Metro WP:METRO, and Whats on TV?
      Done Removed usage of Mirror and Metro, from what I've seen, What's on TV is a reliable source for British entertainment-related news. It's the best-selling British entertainment magazine [1], Several Wikiprojects related to British television list it as a useful source of information. It was described fairly positively by Sainsbury's. FishLoveHam (talk) 08:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Ref 15 is used twice next to itself. Remove the first use as there aren't any sources between the first and last.
      Done FishLoveHam (talk) 07:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
    Anything else negative? Maybe could be found in episode reviews
      Not done Not really no. Besides the pilot, the show only began receiving regular episode reviews after she left. All I could really find negative was ref 15. FishLoveHam (talk) 08:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  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 non-free use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
    Images need both alt text and standered text. The infobox image needs both and the second image needs ALT text.
      Done alt texts,   Not done standered text, what is that? FishLoveHam (talk) 08:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  7. Overall:

@FishLoveHam: all I found, when you're done send a ping Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  1. Pass/Fail: