Talk:Klaus Mikaelson/GA1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
GA review
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Afrowriter (talk · contribs) 12:36, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: MadelynnSienna (talk · contribs) 15:47, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
| Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Well-written: | ||
| 1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | 1. There are missing or duplicate words in sentences.
2. There are unnecessary spaces before commas and brackets.
3. There is improper use of punctuation.
4. There are misspelled words.
5. Incorrect words/terminology are consistently used.
6. The article is quite repetitive.
7. Several sentences make little to no sense in their current form.
8. "Joseph Morgan. Hall has received many accolades for his portrayal of Klaus," Who is Hall? 9. The tense frequently fluctuates between present and past. Given the page is about a fictional character, it should ideally use present tense throughout. 10. The article uses "Always and Forever" and "always and forever". One format needs to be used throughout for consistency. | |
| 1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | 1. There are unnecessary or poorly formatted pipelinks.
2. Several cases of MOS:Overlink, names like Alaric Saltzman and New Orleans are linked multiple times within the same level 2 heading. 3. There are multiple MOS:WTW used. For example, legendary, acclaim, iconic, notable, etc. | |
| 2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check: | ||
| 2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | 1. Several references link to 404 pages or the like.
2. Some citations are cited twice on the References list.
3. There are unnecessary gaps between punctuation and references.
4. Most of the sources do not meet the WP:RS threshold. | |
| 2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). |
| |
| 2c. it contains no original research. | Not reviewed due to the quick fail. | |
| 2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Not reviewed due to the quick fail. | |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
| 3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Not reviewed due to the quick fail. | |
| 3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Not reviewed due to the quick fail. | |
| 4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | In its current form, the article reads as incredibly informal. It needs to be rewritten in an encyclopaedic manner. Not reviewed in further detail due to the quick fail. | |
| 5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Seems to be. | |
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
| 6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | The source cited for the image in the infobox is incorrect. This image does not exist on that page. | |
| 6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Appears to be. | |
| 7. Overall assessment. | Quick failing this under Criteria 1, as it is a long way from meeting the well-written good article criterion. Having read over the entire article, I have provided some feedback for the remaining criteria, but this is not extensive.
I will also be marking the article with a copy edit tag. Overall, this article needs to be seriously rewritten and revamped before resubmission. | |
Additional Comments
1. Please read through Template:Infobox character and appropriately correct the infobox on this page.
- Use the based on template. Should only mention Klaus Mikaelson under character and L.J. Smith under author. Remove "In part on character" and "from The Vampire Diaries".
- Cite sources for nickname/aliases. For example, I can't find anything online to corroborate "The King".
- Remove Caroline Forbes and Hayley Marshall from Spouse, neither of them were ever married to Klaus.
- Grace O'Connell-Mikaelson is not his daughter, this appears to be fanfiction?
- Use a plainlist when refering to multiples instead of a linebreak or /. For example in, "Mystic Falls, Virginia / New Orleans, Louisiana".
- Nationality does not need to be stated given that it is unknown.
- Remove the abilities label. It is completely unnecessary.
2. Let me know if you have any questions!