Talk:Princess Twilight Sparkle (My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic episodes)/GA1

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

Reviewer: TeenAngels1234 (talk · contribs) 15:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm gonna review this. Stay tuned.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Isn't there a summary presentation of the main roles of the crew? Like "X wrote the episode, while X handled the storyboard".
 * I don't really think this is necessary, because they can only be sourced to primary sources (either the show itself or tweets)
 * The part about Mary Jane Begin seems to have little connection to what was written earlier. I suggest first introducing the creatures outside of the Plot section, (e.g. "the evil dragon Discord") and making if possible a prosaic link to what was written before.
 * Isn't there some other review on these episodes? Even a third opinion would be helpful.
 * There are several reviews from fansites, but I have refrained from adding those per MOS:TVRECEPTION. Pamzeis (talk) 03:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's all.TeenAngels1234 (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Brief summa. The article itself is considerably brief, but it still looks complete, since we're talking about two cartoon episodes with no huge cultural impact or complicated production. Passing.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Brief summa. The article itself is considerably brief, but it still looks complete, since we're talking about two cartoon episodes with no huge cultural impact or complicated production. Passing.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Brief summa. The article itself is considerably brief, but it still looks complete, since we're talking about two cartoon episodes with no huge cultural impact or complicated production. Passing.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)