- The following is an archived discussion of a good article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by TBrandley 00:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC) [1].Reply
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: TBrandley (talk · contribs) 00:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- "On the creation of Yang, Rhimes" write her full name as first mention in actual article. Also, Oprah Winfrey how is show important, who is she, explain it. "while also noting her weaknesses" remove also. Then, "New York magazine wrote of the character" huh? That doesn't make sense. Link eighth season in its first mention. Don't use curly quotation mark things, use regular quote marks, per the WP:MOS. Same goes for references. In the first line of reception, it goes straight to reviews. I'd like an intro quickly.
- a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- "New York (magazine)" it actually says that, remove "(magazine)" in references, ref 11. Use single quotes rather than double in references please. Regarding 2b, how is ref. 34 a reliable source
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- Magazine removed. MOS:QUOTEMARKS is also not a GA criterion. The website has been used in other articles, including GA George O'Malley. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- Yep, looks fine. If you do happen to run into more useful information, please add it though. :)
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Looks fine.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- Looks fine, no edit wars, vandalism, etc. Nothing to pick at.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- For the first image, the non-free rationale of it needs expanding, to met WP:NFCC also. Also, de-bold her name in caption in infobox.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.