GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Nominator: OlifanofmrTennant ( talk · contribs) 19:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Pokelego999 ( talk · contribs) 15:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I'll take this on soon. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 15:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
1. Article is well-written.
2. No OR, all of the info is cited in the article.
3. Coverage is broad in depth and focus. Shows multiple aspects of the episode.
4. Article appears neutral, and does not appear to hold a significantly negative nor positive stance on the subject.
5. Article appears stable. Does not appear to have had any major vandalism occur.
6. Article uses one fair use image with proper rationale.
-I'd choose a different word than "charges" since that may be confusing for some readers Done
-I'd add an overall view of what reviewers thought, then follow with Gaiman's statement, since it's a bit blunt right now.
-Does super-consciousness hyperlink? Might be worthwhile to do so.
-Hyperlink split personality. Done
-Looks good
-I'd fuse the second, third, and fourth paragraphs together. Done
-"IGN's Mark Snow gave a positive review, though he felt that the episode was somewhat underwhelming but still worked as the return of the Cybermen" I'd make the "positive review" part the first sentence, and then reword the rest into a second sentence. Done
-I'd fuse five and six together. Done
-Article looks mostly good. Just clear up the above and it should be good to go. Ping me if you have questions. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 15:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Nominator: OlifanofmrTennant ( talk · contribs) 19:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Pokelego999 ( talk · contribs) 15:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I'll take this on soon. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 15:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
1. Article is well-written.
2. No OR, all of the info is cited in the article.
3. Coverage is broad in depth and focus. Shows multiple aspects of the episode.
4. Article appears neutral, and does not appear to hold a significantly negative nor positive stance on the subject.
5. Article appears stable. Does not appear to have had any major vandalism occur.
6. Article uses one fair use image with proper rationale.
-I'd choose a different word than "charges" since that may be confusing for some readers Done
-I'd add an overall view of what reviewers thought, then follow with Gaiman's statement, since it's a bit blunt right now.
-Does super-consciousness hyperlink? Might be worthwhile to do so.
-Hyperlink split personality. Done
-Looks good
-I'd fuse the second, third, and fourth paragraphs together. Done
-"IGN's Mark Snow gave a positive review, though he felt that the episode was somewhat underwhelming but still worked as the return of the Cybermen" I'd make the "positive review" part the first sentence, and then reword the rest into a second sentence. Done
-I'd fuse five and six together. Done
-Article looks mostly good. Just clear up the above and it should be good to go. Ping me if you have questions. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 15:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)