Talk:Ianto's Shrine/GA1
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Suntooooth (talk · contribs) 21:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 15:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Six GA Criteria
edit1. Article is well-written.
2. No OR, all info is cited in the article.
3. Coverage is broad in depth and focus.
4. Article appears neutral, and does not appear to hold a significantly negative nor positive stance on the subject.
5. Article appears stable. Does not appear to have had any major vandalism occur.
6. Article uses no fair use media.
Lead
edit-Clarify that the Torchwood Institute is a fictional location in the show.
-"and was later featured in an episode of Torchwood." Clarify the Shrine specifically was, not the location.
History
edit-Did James Moran work on Torchwood, or was he was an unassociated writer?
-" A common theme for tributes is LGBTQ stories" how is this communicated at the Shrine? Are there any examples we could include?
Overall
edit-Comment before I do the spotcheck: What are the reliability of Silverscreen Tours, End of Show, Explorial, InterCardiff, and We are Cardiff? A brief peruse makes me iffy on the reliability of a few of these but I'd appreciate your input before I make any rash assessments. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm really sorry to waste your time, but due to IRL factors I just don't have the energy for working on this. Feel free to continue the review with the article in its current state, or just quickfail if you don't think it would pass without making improvements - I can always re-nominate a couple months down the line when I'm feeling better. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 04:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Suntooooth Really the only thing that would greatly affect this review is source reliability, so if you're willing to get that clarified, the other things I would be willing to wait for a while on. If you feel it's best, though, I can fail this review for now and then take it on again when you re-nominate this. Entirely up to you on how you want to proceed with this. Regardless, I hope things go smoothly IRL on your end. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- It's probably best to just fail the review, since if it's left open there's a very good chance I'd entirely forget about it. Thanks for your understanding. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 21:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Suntooooth gotcha. I'll fail the nom for now, but feel free to renominate this once you're ready. Hope all goes well on your end. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- It's probably best to just fail the review, since if it's left open there's a very good chance I'd entirely forget about it. Thanks for your understanding. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 21:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Suntooooth Really the only thing that would greatly affect this review is source reliability, so if you're willing to get that clarified, the other things I would be willing to wait for a while on. If you feel it's best, though, I can fail this review for now and then take it on again when you re-nominate this. Entirely up to you on how you want to proceed with this. Regardless, I hope things go smoothly IRL on your end. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)