Talk:Locked in Time

Cleanup

I recently performed a cleanup of this article. The citations to suite101 website cannot be linkified, because this site is blacklisted as a spamsite. See the blacklist. --Otheus 15:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Locked in Time. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070627051231/http://www.lpm.uni-sb.de/englisch/Materialien/Hesse/reviews/lockedtimerev.html to http://www.lpm.uni-sb.de/englisch/Materialien/Hesse/reviews/lockedtimerev.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Locked in Time/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ben79487 (talk · contribs) 04:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

The checklist

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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
	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).	There are no direct quotations, and no actual number statistics.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	It addresses the main aspects quite well.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	According to Wikipedia:Article size, it is doing well on the size front.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The POV is good.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	There are no edit wars going on.
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.	The cover is fair use, and is low-resolution.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The only image, the cover, belongs in an infobox, so it is okay.
	7. Overall assessment.	This should be a good article.