Talk:Kate Is Enough

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kate Is Enough/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dom497 (talk · contribs) 16:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   See comment section. Good.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   See comment section. Good.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Good.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   References included where needed.

   C. No original research:

   No original research found.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   All major aspects of the topic have been covered.

   B. Focused:

   Article remains focused throughout.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   No bias found.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Article is somewhat stable, please see comment section. Good enough.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

   All images are tagged correctly.

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

   Images are provided, appropriate, and have suitable captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Pass!

Comments

• "...fighting over a tennis racquet, which Cole broke, which was Rex's", wasn't the tennis racquet Hannah's?
• The entire casting section of the article needs to be re-written. The entire section is written like this: This person who was cast as this person, this person who was cast as this person, this person who was cast as this person". You use the word "who" too many times and the paragraph (to me) sounds really weird.

I fixed some other issues regarding the wording of the article. The article will be on hold for 7 days to allow improvements to be made as well to see if the article undergoes any major changes. If you have any questions, feel free to leave them here or on my talk page.--Dom497 (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I have addressed and fixed all of the issues. Thank you for the review. TBrandley 22:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I have passed the article.--Dom497 (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2012 (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.