Doctor Death (magazine) has been listed as one of the
Language and literature 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: June 9, 2020. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hi. This is Imtiaz. The Doctor Death I am looking for is a novel. The Dr. Death in this novel is the good guy who goes about helping people fight crime. He is a sort of protector, assasin (all good). I read this novel some 10 years back, quite thick novel. More than 300 pages, approx. I quite enjoyed it but i can't find it anymore...Can anyone help me, please. Contact me on email: yourstruly.mohammed@gmail.com
Thanx in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajmohd ( talk • contribs) 15 March 2007, 19:35 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Doctor Death (magazine). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to split this into two articles: one about the magazine, and one about the unrelated character. Any objections? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: SchroCat ( talk · contribs) 09:31, 8 June 2020 (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. | See below. | |
Very little to say on this:
That's it from me - a nice article that covers everything I would expect from a short-lived magazine, and done very well too. |
-- Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 22:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | One minor formatting point: you have "Westport CT" and "Westport, Connecticut": these should be made consistent
| |
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). | All sources are reliable, no information is unsupported | |
2c. it contains no original research. | All information supported by citations | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Earwig shows no concerns | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
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. | Only one image, correctly licenced | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Very pertinent image, suitably handled | |
7. Overall assessment. |
All good from me on your changes (or your rationale not to change the colons). I'm happy that this is certainly at GA level. Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 08:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Doctor Death (magazine) has been listed as one of the
Language and literature 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: June 9, 2020. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hi. This is Imtiaz. The Doctor Death I am looking for is a novel. The Dr. Death in this novel is the good guy who goes about helping people fight crime. He is a sort of protector, assasin (all good). I read this novel some 10 years back, quite thick novel. More than 300 pages, approx. I quite enjoyed it but i can't find it anymore...Can anyone help me, please. Contact me on email: yourstruly.mohammed@gmail.com
Thanx in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajmohd ( talk • contribs) 15 March 2007, 19:35 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Doctor Death (magazine). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to split this into two articles: one about the magazine, and one about the unrelated character. Any objections? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: SchroCat ( talk · contribs) 09:31, 8 June 2020 (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. | See below. | |
Very little to say on this:
That's it from me - a nice article that covers everything I would expect from a short-lived magazine, and done very well too. |
-- Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 22:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC) | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | One minor formatting point: you have "Westport CT" and "Westport, Connecticut": these should be made consistent
| |
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). | All sources are reliable, no information is unsupported | |
2c. it contains no original research. | All information supported by citations | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Earwig shows no concerns | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
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. | Only one image, correctly licenced | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Very pertinent image, suitably handled | |
7. Overall assessment. |
All good from me on your changes (or your rationale not to change the colons). I'm happy that this is certainly at GA level. Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 08:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)