Talk:Molly Dawes

Molly Dawes has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: October 5, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Television: British Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

GA Review

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

Nominator: FishLoveHam (talk · contribs) 19:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: OlifanofmrTennant (talk · contribs) 13:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC) This has been assigned to me from the GARC[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
So the lead paragraph uses series in refrences to "Our Girl series one". It once again used series in references to "Our Girl" this seems confusing. Consider altering wording
Done FishLoveHam (talk) 07:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The story line section seems a little; is there any way to slim that down?
What? FishLoveHam (talk) 07:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a little large* Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done FishLoveHam (talk) 14:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"When he dies, the ASF become involved to track down Badrai." grammar
Done I'm not sure what this is asking me to do, but I changed "to track" to "in tracking". FishLoveHam (talk) 07:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the reception over uses quotes
Done Paraphrased some FishLoveHam (talk) 07:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"His colleague, Thomas Ling" reword this, preferably mention he was also writing for radio times.
Done FishLoveHam (talk) 07:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Pirbright, Surrey" both places are linked separately see MOS:GEOLINK
Done FishLoveHam (talk) 07:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
Can use explain the use of Daily Mirror (WP:DAILYMIRROR), Metro WP:METRO, and Whats on TV?
Done Removed usage of Mirror and Metro, from what I've seen, What's on TV is a reliable source for British entertainment-related news. It's the best-selling British entertainment magazine [1], Several Wikiprojects related to British television list it as a useful source of information. It was described fairly positively by Sainsbury's. FishLoveHam (talk) 08:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 15 is used twice next to itself. Remove the first use as there aren't any sources between the first and last.
Done FishLoveHam (talk) 07:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Anything else negative? Maybe could be found in episode reviews
Not done Not really no. Besides the pilot, the show only began receiving regular episode reviews after she left. All I could really find negative was ref 15. FishLoveHam (talk) 08:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Images need both alt text and standered text. The infobox image needs both and the second image needs ALT text.
Done alt texts, Not done standered text, what is that? FishLoveHam (talk) 08:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lead picture needs a caption like "x as they appeared in x" see: Felicity Smoak (Arrowverse) or Stephanie Edwards (Grey's Anatomy) Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OlifanofmrTennant: I have to disagree. The character has only been portrayed by one actress, the image is cropped to the character's face. I don't see the need for clarification. Is it a requirement? Because there are plenty of similar character articles which achieved GA status without a caption. FishLoveHam (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:

@FishLoveHam: all I found, when you're done send a ping Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant: Addressed everything. FishLoveHam (talk) 08:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pass/Fail: