Well written article with good facts and plenty of information. A true testament as to how Wikipedia articles should be written. It's also come a long way.
Gold Stur 01:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose a good article but the lead isn't long enough(See:
Wikipedia:Lead) and there are no references.
Falphin 01:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Image:GGALLIN.jpg lacks any copyright information and is currently at-risk of deletion.
The lead is too short.
The writing features far too many "(see below)", or "(see
this link)" parentheticals. In many cases the links could be worked easily into the prose.
Statements like "Tensions within The Jabbers began to swell as GG became increasingly uncontrollable, vicious, and uncompromising" need some according-to-who attribution.
In general the writing feels narrative rather than encyclopedic.
Object per above objections. In addition, this article is desperate for incline citations and a good copyedit. Certainly a very nice start to the article!
*Exeunt* GanymeadDialogue? 15:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Object as per Bunchofgrapes and Ganymead.
Saravask 22:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Object a truely impressive improvment from where it was
when I first saw it but its not quite to featured status.
Dalf |
Talk 07:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Well written article with good facts and plenty of information. A true testament as to how Wikipedia articles should be written. It's also come a long way.
Gold Stur 01:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose a good article but the lead isn't long enough(See:
Wikipedia:Lead) and there are no references.
Falphin 01:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Image:GGALLIN.jpg lacks any copyright information and is currently at-risk of deletion.
The lead is too short.
The writing features far too many "(see below)", or "(see
this link)" parentheticals. In many cases the links could be worked easily into the prose.
Statements like "Tensions within The Jabbers began to swell as GG became increasingly uncontrollable, vicious, and uncompromising" need some according-to-who attribution.
In general the writing feels narrative rather than encyclopedic.
Object per above objections. In addition, this article is desperate for incline citations and a good copyedit. Certainly a very nice start to the article!
*Exeunt* GanymeadDialogue? 15:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Object as per Bunchofgrapes and Ganymead.
Saravask 22:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Object a truely impressive improvment from where it was
when I first saw it but its not quite to featured status.
Dalf |
Talk 07:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)reply