Talk:Daredevil season 2/GA1
GA Review
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jujutsuan (talk · contribs) 19:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Looks good at first glance. Will begin a more detailed review now. ]
- I've evaluated everything but the reliability of the sources. This article looks to be in very good shape so far, after I did some minor copy-editing. ]
- Thanks for doing this for us @Jujutsuan: I've just gone through and done a c/e myself, cutting down all those quotes so that we don't have so many blockquotes. We probably should have done that before nominating anyway. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- No problem @]
- Oh wait, I misinterpreted your edit. You meant you shortened the quotes, not just reformatted. Hmm... I actually enjoyed reading through them. I know WP isn't a ]
- Stylistically, editors of the MCU-related articles try to avoid an over abundance of block quotes in the prose. And the reason for that is we should be paraphrasing to avoid WP:COPYVIO. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)]
- OK. I guess if anyone really wants the firsthand account they can go to the sources. This is a moot point, then. Only problem left to solve is the ref reliability. ]
- Stylistically, editors of the MCU-related articles try to avoid an over abundance of block quotes in the prose. And the reason for that is we should be paraphrasing to avoid
- Oh wait, I misinterpreted your edit. You meant you shortened the quotes, not just reformatted. Hmm... I actually enjoyed reading through them. I know WP isn't a ]
- No problem @]
- Thanks for doing this for us @Jujutsuan: I've just gone through and done a c/e myself, cutting down all those quotes so that we don't have so many blockquotes. We probably should have done that before nominating anyway. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
here for what they are not)
|
---|
|
Overall: |
· · · |
This article's references don't all support the content. Just at first glance,
]- I've fixed the ref sourcing you mentioned. If you had any other specific complaints regarding the refs, the rest should be fine. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks! I agree; the rest of the refs look way too specific to be unreliable, and they're from decent sources. I'll go ahead and pass this nom now. ]
Congratulations
- Thanks. Appreciate the review! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)