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

Nominator: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 02:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Arconning (talk · contribs) 15:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will review this! Comments will probably be finished in the next 72 hours! Arconning (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokelego999 @Cukie Gherkin Here are my short comments, hope they can be addressed. :) Arconning (talk) 09:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Arconning I believe I've addressed all relevant prose issues. I additionally found an Inverse source to replace the CBR source. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pokelego999 @Cukie Gherkin One more issue, the CBR source is still used in the article. Hope this can be fixed. :) Arconning (talk) 07:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Arconning fixed, apologies for missing that. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose and MoS

[edit]

Lead and infobox

[edit]

Conception and development

[edit]

Appearances

[edit]

Critical reception

[edit]

Image

[edit]

Refs

[edit]

Misc

[edit]


Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
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.