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

Reviewer: Hmlarson ( talk · contribs) 03:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC) Hello, I have begun the review and will be posting feedback below. As issues are addressed, please add a note indicating your changes to the relevant item listed below. Thank you. Hmlarson ( talk) 02:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Overall, this is a well-written article that meets all of the criteria for a Good Article. I made a few minor copy edits summarized below.

Lead

• I wikified storyboarded. Hmlarson ( talk) 03:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Plot

• I made some minor copy edits to this section. Hmlarson ( talk) 03:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Production

• I made some minor copy edits to this section. Hmlarson ( talk) 03:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Review checklist

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   A well-written article. I had a few suggested copy edits listed above that I ended up making myself.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a ( reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c ( OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a ( major aspects): b ( focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b ( appropriate use with suitable captions):

   n/a

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: