Talk:Tomb of Horrors/GA1

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

Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. It is a nice little article. I fixed a few copy editing issues, including informal contractions like "didn't" in the prose, and some punctuation issues. However, this passes as a GA, without an answer to that.
 * I do wonder what  a "demi-lich" is if a lich is "an undead creature, a spellcaster".

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

Congratulations! &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 01:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): Well written b (MoS): Follows MoS
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable  c (OR): No OR
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): Sets the context b (focused): Remains focused on subject
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias: NPOV
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * Awesome, thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: Demi-lich, the info can be found here; since it is unreasonable to expect a reader to track that down, I added some explanation to the plot summary portion. BOZ (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 02:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)