Talk:Filli Vanilli/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Pamzeis (talk · contribs) 01:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I AM NOT MISSING A CHANCE TO REVIEW MLP NOMINATIONS THAT ARE NOT MINE!! But really, I do want to review this. Expect comments by 8 February. Will try not to screw this up. Pamzeis (talk) 01:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hahahahaha! You can take your time, that will allow me to work on some other stuff. xD ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 07:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Prose

 * seventy ninth — should be hyphenated
 * Added.


 * Thiessen and co-directed by — since this article is (or should be...) written in American English, add a comma before and
 * Mr. Styyx writes in heaven knows what English. :) Added.


 * BigMac lip-syncs — his name is two words, right?
 * Eeyuup. Fixed.


 * by 584.000 people — I know MOS:DIGITS is not part of the GA criteria but can the full stop be replaced with comma because it is annoying the heck out of me...
 * Fixed.


 * Now with — comma after now?
 * Added.


 * Pony Tones, and agrees — I do not think the comma is needed
 * Removed


 * Entertainment Weekly should be in italics
 * Stupid mistake, fixed.


 * Factory which was made — comma after factory
 * Added.


 * by Amazon released — comma after Amazon
 * Added.

Other

 * Amazon didn't release Maud Pie. Shout! Factory did...
 * Removed Amazon. I don't feel the need to mention Shout! again.


 * Alvarez's criticism of Pinkie Pie could be mentioned for neutrality
 * Added ", but noted that Pinkie Pie was annoying in the episode".

Added all my notes. Article. Pamzeis (talk) 01:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed most if not all. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 16:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Second look

 * Is Magic as well — comma after magic?
 * Added.


 * but noted that Pinkie Pie was annoying in the episode. — "noted" suggests a fact...
 * Swapped with "claimed". ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 14:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Still a few things that need to be cleared up. Pamzeis (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm still reviewing the sources... I'm not done yet. Pamzeis (talk) 13:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The sources have left me baffled. for the use of primary sources here. Pamzeis (talk) 05:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't be comfortable passing the article with the current level of primary sources used. Definitely needs additional secondary sources. –– FormalDude  talk  09:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Status query
Pamzeis, Styyx, where does this review stand? A second opinion was given that the article "definitely needs additional secondary sources", yet there have been no edits in the month since here or to the article. Can you get this nomination moving again? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:25, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh crap, I had a GAN. I think this is a fail at this point since there aren't any secondary sources about production. ~Styyx Talk ? 00:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't notice the second opinion had been provided because it was still showing up as needing a second opinion on the nominations page. Given the second opinion and the fact that the nominator agrees, I'm gonna have to this.  Thank you for all your work. Pamzeis (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2022 (UTC)