Talk:Naomi Clark (90210 character)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: HGraphite (talk) 02:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Hello! I have found just a few problems with this article.[reply]

There are three dead links, check them here [1]

Remedied (the third link is actually working, though the page report says otherwise). -- James26 (talk) 05:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the header you should provide a reference when you refer to her being praised by Los Angeles Times, Entertainment Weekly, and People magazine.

Remedied -- James26 (talk) 05:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Currently undone, per WP:LEADCITE -- James26 (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I'm gonna need a second reviewer to review the prose, but until then, I will put this article on hold. HGraphite (talk) 02:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. Just wait for another editor to review the prose, and you should have it. Congrats. HGraphite (talk) 05:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the issues I found with the article:

I'm not convinced of the rationale to have File:TSMcCord.jpg in the article; the lead image is plenty I think.
"In the third installment," installment's probably not the best word; do you mean third episode?

Those are the only couple issues I found: I'll put the article on hold and pass it when this is handled. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review this. I've adjusted the wording. Regarding the image, is it really that big of a problem? It's there to provide a visual illustration of notability, and it only brings the total number of images to a mere two (I've already removed a third). The Todd Manning article (rated GA) uses a similar image to illustrate notability, and contains far more than two images. I'll remove it if you insist, but can these points be considered first? -- James26 (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's too many fair use images on Manning, personally; a couple could probably be removed. As for this article, it does help to combine the real-world aspect and the fictional character, so there's at least a sort of rationale that can be established for it. As such, I'll pass the article. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. -- James26 (talk) 02:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]