Talk:Fay Ripley/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments

This article appears to be at or about GA-level. I will now do a detailed review section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last.

At this point I will only highlight "problems. Pyrotec (talk) 09:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Early life -

• Appears to be compliant.

....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 09:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Acting career -
  • Leading roles -

• The final two sentences in the first paragraph, and the claims made in them, are unreferenced.
• Ref 32 has a broken web link.

....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) Pyrotec (talk) 10:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• I found no further "problems", so I'm going straight on to an Overall summary. Pyrotec (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Response

• I've updated the URL to the Daily Record interview, so that should be accessible now. That she appeared in Dead Gorgeous, Meg and Mog, and Bedtime is a non-controversial statement of fact, so doesn't require a citation. Thanks for your work so far. Bradley0110 (talk) 14:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the update. I'm willing to agree that they are non-controversial claims; but they are not-WP:Verifiable and so they are merely claims, not statements of fact. Interestingly, most of these are wikilinked in the Filmography table, but the relevant articles are also devoid of references. Pyrotec (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• External links could be used to provide verification. Pyrotec (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

An interesting, wide-ranging, well-referenced, article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   No images.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   No images.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Congratulations on the quality of the article, I'm awarding GA-status.

Some images would help the article, but there is sufficient "text" to meet GA-requirements. Pyrotec (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)