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: MaranoFan (talk · contribs) 17:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hello again! I was going to offer comments at your next peer review request but I suppose a GAN is just as good. I've also been trying to improve my GA karma since I've been nominating so many articles, so I hope it is fine if I review this!--NØ 17:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

  • That makes sense to me. I think I was way over-thinking this part. Aoba47 (talk) 21:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is always best to be as transparent as possible to avoid any potential confusion. I have revised this part using your suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 21:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a fair point. Although you said a change is not necessary, I still made a minor adjustment as I do not want to leave any room for potential misinterpretation or confusion. Aoba47 (talk) 21:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Premise and characters[edit]

  • I greatly appreciate nitpick-y comments as I want the article to be in the best possible shape. I have revised this part. Aoba47 (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be "shown" so I have revised that part. Unfortunately, none of the sources were particularly clear on these "schemes". No need to apologize as it is not obvious really at all. I'd be more than happy to hear any suggestions for this part. It may be best to remove this part entirely if it is too vague to be understood. Aoba47 (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry. I forgot a word there. It should be "uncontrollable hair". Apologies for that. Aoba47 (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Production and broadcast history[edit]

  • Unfortunately, the citation just lists them as "music" so I cannot say for sure. Apologies for that. Aoba47 (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree and I have removed the wikilink per your suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently, I really wanted a 2022 reboot of this show (not really though lol). I have revised it to the correct date. Aoba47 (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure how that word snuck in there. I have revised it out. Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Episodes[edit]

  • That is a good question. I believe that is the case as the television FAs I have seen do this, but it does get quite repetitive though so I understand why it looks weird, especially since it is done in such a small table. Aoba47 (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception[edit]

  • Yikes! I am not sure how that happened. I intended to use what you suggested, but something must have happened along the way. Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  • Thank you! I try my best to be as comprehensive as possible. I am very grateful for the Wikipedia Library for providing access to so many databases, specifically Newspapers.com. I like to think that this article could be the best comprehensive resource for the show for anyone interested in it and it is nice to appreciate the television journalists that write all of these articles in the first place. Aoba47 (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Both of these are really a boon while writing about this type of topic!--NØ 02:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict[edit]

  • @MaranoFan: Thank you for your review! You have helped to improve the article immensely. Apologies for the silly mistakes. I kind of got caught up in working on this article that I did not take as much time to really re-read everything as carefully as I should have. I honestly did not expect this nomination to be picked up for a review so quickly so I appreciate that!
  • Anyway, I believe that I have addressed everything, but please let me know if there is anything that could be improved further. Best of luck with your examinations. I am sure you will do great! Aoba47 (talk) 21:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries. I think the article being well-researched and comprehensive is way more important than a few small mistakes. And I'm sure your genius use of the PR process will weed out anything I might have missed here. Hope you are able to enjoy your wikibreak more with this out of the way!--NØ 02:26, 7 September 2022 (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.