Talk:Paul Robinson (Neighbours)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   In the lead, is this sentence correct ---> "At the time if his 2004 return he was the only original character in the series"? Same section, "...stating it's what makes him an entertaining character" ---> "...stating it is what makes him an entertaining character", per here. In the 2004 onward section, sixth paragraph, "He is taken to hospital" is "the" missing between "to" and "hospital"? Same thing goes for "...explains that Jill is critical in hospital after being hit by a car" in the tenth paragraph... of the same section.

    Done - I've made all the changes.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 01:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

   Check.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Throughout the article, please link "womaniser", "Michael Martin", and "Channel 7" to their correspondence articles as at the moment they stand out as disambiguations. In the 2004 onward section, is it "Isabelle Hoyland" or "Izzy Hoyland"? In the Reception section, "They also branded him as the reason Neighbours, in their opinion was good viewing in 2000's", I believe that "Neighbours" should be italicized, cause it's talking about the show, right?

    Done - I've made all the changes apart from Izzy as that is the name of the article and to whom she was always refered to as..RAIN the ONE (Talk) 01:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

   Check.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   References 7 and 23 have different url paths, so you might want to update that.

    Done - The BBC ref will not correct, this is the case with their links for other articles.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 01:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Not that much to do. If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

So I've done everything asked, every one you mentioned apart from the BBC Ref because it will not change.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 01:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you have, and I fixed the BBC ref. Thank you to Rain the One for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)