Talk:Adam Mitchell (Doctor Who)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Yunshui (talk · contribs) 08:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

After languishing in mergey purgatory for a couple of years, this article has been expanded and spruced up very nicely.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose is good, excellent in places; grammar and spelling are fine; in-universe information is presented correctly. Generally compliant with MOS, however the citation style should be consistent; at present there's a mixture of short citations and named references in the article.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   A good spread of references - possibly a bit heavy on primary sources, but with sufficient third-party sources to provide balance. A couple of sources (Digital Spy and Den of Geek) skirt the outer fringes of WP:RS, but IMHO, fall just within its boundaries. There doesn't appear to be any original research, in fact most sources are quoted verbatim for clarity.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article covers the major information about the character, without becoming bogged-down in in-universe detail.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Neutral POV is maintained in the tone, and multiple critical sources with both positive and negative opinions are accurately represented.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Since being unmerged about a month ago, the article has been stable.

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):

   Whilst copyrighted, the infobox image has sufficient fair-use rationale to justify its use in the article.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The inconsistent citation style is easily fixed (I'll do it myself shortly), and since that's the only issue I can see, I'm callling this a Good Article. Nice work! Yunshui 雲‍水 08:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your time, and the review! Eshlare (talk) 09:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)