GA Review[edit]

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.


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

Reviewer: TrademarkedTWOrantula (talk · contribs) 04:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Tears of the Kingdom, GTA, and now this? 2024 is really the year for good articles! TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 04:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Prose is a bit rocky. However, it has improved post-GA review.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Lead section is of an adequate length. Layout is up to code. Article is not infected with words on the WTW list. Fiction is out-of-universe. List incorporation policy does not apply.
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. No bare URLs spotted. References and further reading sections are in the correct place.
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). Reliable sources are cited (save for a few Kotaku articles).
2c. it contains no original research. Spotchecking proves text-source integrity.
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. The conception, design, description, reception, and impact are mentioned—material that is adequate for an article about a fictional character.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Article stays focused.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Article is neutral.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Article has not been in any recent edit wars.
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. Promotional art and skin variant images are tagged with the correct copyright status and have valid non-free use rationales.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Character art is relevant (obviously). Image of skin variants support the article's content. Captions are adequate.
7. Overall assessment. "Steve, I'm stuck!"

Quickfail?[edit]

Few notes before we begin[edit]

Lead[edit]

Concept and design[edit]

Description[edit]

Reception[edit]

Spotchecking[edit]

Reference numbers are of this revision.

All above nay's have been resolved. I apologize for some of the failed verification's, as I was not the one to originally place some of these citations. λ NegativeMP1 17:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, that should do it. Just gonna check a few more things, and we'll be done. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 17:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.

Drive-by comment[edit]