Talk:Maddy Young

Maddy Young 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 29, 2008.

Sources

Development

"Nadine Lewington Interview". Holby Gazette. 19 July 2008. Retrieved 2008-07-21. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Reception

Jim Shelley (13 November 2007). "Keep taking the tablets, Holby". The Mirror. Retrieved 2008-07-20. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Jim Shelley (16 October 2007). "Naive statement of the week". The Mirror. Retrieved 2008-07-20. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Gareth McLean (25 March 2008). "Watch this: Holby City". The Guardian. Retrieved 2008-07-20. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
"Holby.tv Awards 2007 Results". Holby Gazette. 26 October 2007. Retrieved 2007-10-27. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

GA Review

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

Preliminary

Hello! I'm weebiloobil (talk · contribs), and I'll be reviewing this article for possible GA status. The Good Article criteria can be found here, and accordance with the criteria is essential. I have previously reviewed Sam Strachan, which passed, and I hope the same happens here. I'm usually available to answer questions (just leave them on my talk page), but I'll be watching this page as well. Good luck! - weebiloobil (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A very good article, bit, unfortunately, not as good as Sam Strachan. Read on to find out why

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Just one occurance of "hum" instead of "him", but that's all

B. MoS compliance:
Why are there so many links to Nadine Lewington? She needn't be fully named in every section, and certainly not always linked... "The BBC revealed..." should be changed, as it makes it sound overly dramatic. You don't need all these references in the lead.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
References 37, 38 and 42 arne't working

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
I have placed the article on hold, until these small little problems are fixed. Have fun! - weebiloobil (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the review! I think I've sorted everything - the copious Nadine Lewingtons have been delinked, and in most places switched out so as to not fully name her every time; the "hum" now correctly reads "him"; the "revealed" has been changed to a less dramatic "explained", and the references in the lead have been cut down to just the ones beside direct quotes. Wrt the 3 refs not working: 42 works for me as a link to the BBC page for the special - it's just the episode itself that's no longer available to view online. The other 2 seem to have been purged from the Daily Mirror website. They're available through Highbeam, but as that's subscription only, I've changed the templates from 'cite web' to just the general 'citation' template, as both were in the newspaper itself as well as on the website, so hopefully that should be applicable. Any problems with that though, just let me know and I'll try and work something else out asap. Thanks again :) Frickative 21:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]