The following is an archived discussion of a good article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by TBrandley 00:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC) [1].[reply]

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

Reviewer: TBrandley (talk · contribs) 00:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   "On the creation of Yang, Rhimes" write her full name as first mention in actual article. Also, Oprah Winfrey how is show important, who is she, explain it. "while also noting her weaknesses" remove also. Then, "New York magazine wrote of the character" huh? That doesn't make sense. Link eighth season in its first mention. Don't use curly quotation mark things, use regular quote marks, per the WP:MOS. Same goes for references. In the first line of reception, it goes straight to reviews. I'd like an intro quickly.

Rhimes name is given now. Oprah context. Why would I remove that clause? Yes, actually, it does make sense. The magazine wrote of her character.. S8 linked. MOS:PUNCT is not a GA criterion. Intro given. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   "New York (magazine)" it actually says that, remove "(magazine)" in references, ref 11. Use single quotes rather than double in references please. Regarding 2b, how is ref. 34 a reliable source

Magazine removed. MOS:QUOTEMARKS is also not a GA criterion. The website has been used in other articles, including GA George O'Malley. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The website has been used in other articles, including GA George O'Malley" isn't a good enough rationale, could have been added after review, reviewer could have missed it. Either way, it doesn't explain or have a good enough rationale for source. TBrandley 00:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you reviewed George O'Malley. The website has a staff, and from scoping around the website, it appears reliable. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Yep, looks fine. If you do happen to run into more useful information, please add it though. :)

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Looks fine.

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Looks fine, no edit wars, vandalism, etc. Nothing to pick at.

4. 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):

   For the first image, the non-free rationale of it needs expanding, to met WP:NFCC also. Also, de-bold her name in caption in infobox.

MOS:BOLD says nothing about bolding the article title being a problem. Rationale expanded. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Obviously in good shape, this one will be good to pass after the above are addressed. Well done! TBrandley 05:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.