Talk:Mel Bush/GA1

Latest comment: 2 hours ago by Pokelego999 in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Nominator: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 00:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: DoctorWhoFan91 (talk · contribs) 06:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'll take this one. Expect remarks in a few hours. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'll go section by section. (P.S. I'm thinking of nominating Forest of the Dead again, would you like to review it?)

Images

edit
  • Any free images from the recent episodes, maybe?

References

edit

All fine

Lead

edit

All fine

Character biography

edit
  • Is there nothing to say of the six stories between her debut and departure?
    • I summarized them mostly because it would just be restating each episode's basic plot. Mel doesn't have a very big role in any of them akin to her modern appearances and summarizing the episodes again here would just bloat the plot unnecessarily. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
      • there must be some common elements, like whatever the polite version of "damsel in distress" or ""crybaby" that distracted from more important stories" is
        • nothing here too?
          • Sorry, just wanted to double check what I had. The sources don't really give a particular highlight to specific episodes, and mostly focus on era-wide personality. I did not include it in the plot section out of concern that this would be too opinionated, as the audience reaction to Mel's role feels more fitting in the development reception. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Development

edit

Reception

edit

Overall

edit

I'll go in detail later, but please make the paragraphs smaller. They get harder to read the longer they are. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

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):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (references):  
    b (citations to reliable sources):  
    c (OR):  
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
  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:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. 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):  

Overall:
Pass/Fail:  

  ·   ·   ·