Talk:Night of the Sentinels

GA Review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written:
 * Not Yet the prose is too informal, particularly in the plot section. The tense of the section is inconsistant, and the language is generally very unprofessional ("suddenly the sentinels appear!") it is my opinion that the plot section needs to be completely rewritten into a professional, neutral, consistant tone.
 * ✅ I have fixed the plot and rewrote and shortened it a bit. Gman124 (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable:
 * Not Yet References themselves appear to be fine. However, the reference tags need to be merged, with references to the same source put together.
 * ✅ I have fixed the references. Gman124 (talk) 00:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage:
 * Pass I don't see any problems in this area.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy:
 * Not Yet The aforementioned plot section is highly slanted in its coverage of the episode towards a "suspense" format, and it is biased towards the "good guys" of the series. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is intended to convey everything in a neutral tone.
 * ✅ I rewrote the plot and i really think it is neutral now. Gman124 (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) It is stable:
 * Not Yet The other problems with the article make it inconsistant and unstable. Repair them and it should be fine in this aspect.
 * ✅ I believe all the problems have been addressed. Gman124 (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
 * Not Yet there is one image and one table, I recommend that the cast section be formed into a table and other images be gathered about the subject.
 * ✅ formed the cast section into a table. and i don't think it needs any more images. Gman124 (talk) 00:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Overall:
 * On Hold until the above problems are resolved. -Ed! (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I put the cast in a table. Gman124 (talk) 03:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I fixed the references and none are repeating now, and I also fixed the plot, although I don't get most of the stuff you said, and i think I fixed everything. Could you explain a little more specifically and see if your comments are met now. Gman124 (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

2nd GA Review
To finally end the nominations past their first week, I am re-reviewing them all.
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Unfortunately, not enough improvements were made to pass the article. Fisrt off, the article is not written well. It uses terms like "part 1" and "imdb.com" instead of proper grammar. The external links need clean-up, one "link" dosen't even take you anywhere! Also, the article does not have many references, just 14 to be in fact. There's only one picture, at least two are needed to pass. After checking grammar and adding more images, the article can be re-nominated. Limetolime (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've quick failed this article. None of the issues mentioned in the previous GA have been adequately addressed at all. The article uses many questionable sources that to not meet WP:RS, is poorly written, poorly formatted and organized, and contains pointless trivia. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)