Talk:Casualty series 29/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sagecandor (talk · contribs) 21:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

29 series is quite impressive. Hopefully it won't take me 29 series more to post up a review. Sagecandor (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of June 16, 2017, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Article is quite high quality. Lede is of appropriate size per WP:LEAD, introducing reader to subject and summarizing article contents. "Overview" section is so large that I would recommend splitting it up into a couple or even a few sub sections within the parent section, as a suggestion for going forwards after GA.

2. Verifiable?: Episode summaries are matter of fact wording per WP:PLOTSUMMARY, everything else in the article, all facts asserted, are backed up to numerous citations. Good use of in-line citation format.

3. Broad in coverage?: Article is very thorough, bringing together research from eighty-four sources on the topic. Covers major aspects of topic including Introduction, Cast, Overview, Main characters, Recurring and guest characters, Production, Reception, Episodes.

4. Neutral point of view?: Writing style as noted above is matter of fact wording. Article appears to be written in a neutral tone. All asserted facts backed up by in-line citations as noted above. Article satisfies NPOV.

5. Stable? Edit history has been stable for several months. Talk page is good also. Also stable since major expansion of additional material on 10 June 2017.

6. Images?: Two images used in article. Both have appropriate licences on their respective image pages.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it Good article reassessed. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.

— Sagecandor (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.