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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Nominator: Pokelego999 ( talk · contribs) 23:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Kung Fu Man ( talk · contribs) 21:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
So I did a light copyedit prior to this, to help fix some wording folow and also match other articles. However, I feel there's still some issues that need consideration:
Now the biggest issue: the reception section is a bit harder to get through. The separation between the paragraphs doesn't feel quite so clear, especially with the design discussion bleeding into both and the journal being split between both. If you could give it another onceover maybe that can help, it led to the point I had to make sure the journal entry cited was the same between both for example. All other sections are looking good, that one just tends to sadly stand out.
I'll keep going with the review after your response, I do want to say I feel this is a very well done article and an enlightening read!-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 21:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Nominator: Pokelego999 ( talk · contribs) 23:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Kung Fu Man ( talk · contribs) 21:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
So I did a light copyedit prior to this, to help fix some wording folow and also match other articles. However, I feel there's still some issues that need consideration:
Now the biggest issue: the reception section is a bit harder to get through. The separation between the paragraphs doesn't feel quite so clear, especially with the design discussion bleeding into both and the journal being split between both. If you could give it another onceover maybe that can help, it led to the point I had to make sure the journal entry cited was the same between both for example. All other sections are looking good, that one just tends to sadly stand out.
I'll keep going with the review after your response, I do want to say I feel this is a very well done article and an enlightening read!-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 21:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)