Talk:2007 Boston Mooninite panic/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Kaleeb18 (talk · contribs) 18:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I'll be taking this article. I have never heard of this event, but I am interested to read about it. Expect some comments by maybe tomorrow, but for sure on Wednesday. I hope to get the review done within 2 weeks. If you want to get a feel for how I will review this article see Talk:Us Again (film)/GA1. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 18:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Lead

• I think the article's name should be in the 1st sentence in bold print similarly to September 11 attacks according to MOS:FIRST
  • Done.
    • @SlySabre: Add the before it
      • Also done.
• The first 2 refs and the first version of ref 3 are not needed in the lead as that is uncontested information and should probably just be put somewhere else in the article. See WP:LEADCITE
  • @Kaleeb18: I’ve moved the first reference to a fitting section, however I don’t see an issue for the second reference, which is http://archive.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/02/01/froth_fear_and_fury/?page=full, which is also now the first reference after the original one was moved. I don’t see an issue with it because it brings up what the sentence does. The part where it says “leading to a massive panic.” is seen in the site as “setting off fears of terrorism and shutting down major roadways and subway lines for parts of the day.” with the title “Froth, fear, and fury”. They both acknowledged the panic, so why your saying that the second reference (which is now the first) doesn’t work has me wondering why.
    • Alright, those first and third references should be fixed now, although like I said, I don’t see why the second needs to be messed with.
      • What I am saying about the second ref (which is now the 1st) is that because what it is sourcing is an uncontested fact the ref does not need to be in the lead, because according to WP:LEADCITE it is better to not have citations in the lead unless it is a contested fact.
        • Oh ok, I think I get it now. It shouldn’t be in the first sentence. Gotcha, I’ll be sure to move it then, thanks.
          • Is it ok if I moved it to the second sentence, which is what I did? The second sentence mentions what the devices were advertising, however the reference doesn’t include that, rather the site is just a short brief sentence of the panic in the span of what looks like one paragraph of two to three sentences.
            • What I’m trying to say is that it doesn’t even need to be in the lead at all. I went ahead and made bold edit as it’s not suggested as the reviewer you edit the article, but I did it myself so you can see what I meant by looking at my edit difference.
              • Ah okay, thanks for telling me, I appreciate it.
• a film based on Aqua Teen Hunger Force. — The is not needed as it literally says that here "Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theaters". See MOS:REDUNDANCY
  • Done.
• "some characteristics with improvised explosive devices", which they said included an "identifiable power source, a circuit board with exposed wiring, and electrical tape" — This doesn’t need to be a quote and could be considered WP:UNDUE weight so I would just paraphrase the sentence.
  • I’m not very good at paraphrasing things so this I meet need some help on. Here’s what I put, keep in mind I only changed a few things and the changes aren’t that noticeable: “After the devices were removed, the Boston Police Department stated in its defense that the ad devices shared some similarities with improvised explosive devices, with them also discovering an identifiable power source, a circuit board with exposed wiring, and electrical tape.”
    • Not to bad
• Computer security expert Bruce Schneier — expert seem like WP:PUFFERY unless that is actually needed to describe him, but I do not think that seems to be the case
  • Done.
• I feel as though something in the lead should mention who the two men were, who placed the bombs besides in the last sentence
  • Done as their names were moved to the first paragraph.
• When the suggestion above is done, this Peter "Zebbler" Berdovsky and Sean Stevens does not need to be mentioned in the last sentence
  • Done as per above.

Planning

• Boston area artist Zebbler (Peter Berdovsky) — change his name to Peter "Zebbler" Berdovsky like it is in the infobox
  • Done.
• organization named Interference, Inc., and asked Berdovsky — I’m pretty sure the comma before and is not needed
  • Done.
• John worked for a marketing organization named Interference, Inc., — This should go right after John is first mentioned with commas around it.
  • Like this? “-met a man named John (nicknamed VJ Aiwaz on LaserBoy.org) in New York City, who worked for a marketing organization named Interference, Inc.“
    • you know what I would just get rid of the nickname thing because that seems to be irrelevant and put ”in New York City" after it says who John works for
      • I’m assuming your referring to something like this: “-met a man named John, who worked for a marketing organization named Interference, Inc. in New York City“ SlySabre (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
        • @SlySabre: Yes and comma after the period in Inc
          • “-met a man named John, who worked for a marketing organization named Interference, Inc., in New York City“ ok this should do it.
            • Done.
• There seems to be a lot of small sentences that could possibly be combined with another sentence like this one Berdovsky agreed and enlisted Sean Stevens, this one Interference shipped Berdovsky 40 electronic signs. and this one They dubbed the activity "Boston Mission 1".

So for example in the first sentence and the second sentence in the 2nd paragraph could be combined like this, "Berdovsky, Stevens, and Dana Seaver put up 20 magnetic lights in mid January, dubbing the activity "Boston Mission 1"."

* I think someone already updated the page to fix that, was it you?

* Nevermind, I think I fixed it, or at least I tried, is it ok now?

• I will check the 2 refs in that section later when I’m not on my ipad.

Second look for planning

• worked for a marketing organization named Interference, Inc. and – This seems to have been accidentally forgotten to get rid of when i asked you to move it somewhere else in the sentence, which you did u just forgot to remove the original phrase.
  • I don’t quite understand what your asking here, are you wanting me to remove that part of the sentence?
    • SlySabre Here look at the first two sentences Peter "Zebbler" Berdovsky met a man named John, who worked for a marketing organization named Interference, Inc., in New York City. John worked for a marketing organization named Interference, Inc. it mentions where John works twice only need it the first time
      • Oh, so just remove the last sentence? Like this: “Peter "Zebbler" Berdovsky met a man named John, who worked for a marketing organization named Interference, Inc., in New York City.”
        • Ok I think I fixed it: “In November 2006, Boston area artist Peter "Zebbler" Berdovsky met a man named John, who worked for a marketing organization named Interference, Inc., in New York City. John then asked Berdovsky if he would be interested in working on a promotional project.”
• Once you do the above the second and third sentence in the first paragraph can be combined.
  • Done.
• Interference shipped Berdovsky 40 electronic signs and Adrienne Yee – comma after and
  • Done.
• According to police, the suggested locations for the devices included "train stations, overpasses, hip/trendy areas and high traffic/high visibility areas". – This is never actually a quote in the ref but should still probably be mentioned where they placed the devices
  • Should I just remove the quotations or remove the quotations and remove the “According to police” part, so basically either ‘According to police, the suggested locations for the devices included train stations, overpasses, hip/trendy areas and high traffic/high visibility areas.’ or ‘The suggested locations for the devices included train stations, overpasses, hip/trendy areas and high traffic/high visibility areas.’?
    • Well in the ref the quoted part is never in there, but it looks like the police say something along the lines of that, but I would still change the quoted part up a little bit just in case it is an actual quote.
      • Quotations are removed.
• The signs were to be put up discreetly overnight, with them being paid $300 – them needs to be changed to Berdovsky and Stevens because it sounds like the devices are getting paid
  • Done.
• I think the first and second sentence in the second paragraph can be combined
  • Done.
• one under Interstate 93 at Sullivan Square in Charlestown. – I am unsure if a comma is supposed to go after Sullivan Square or not
  • I’m not sure either but I’ve went ahead and added it anyways.

Devices

• They were promotional electronic placards — what is they referring to? I get it’s referring to the devices but the devices haven’t been mentioned yet in that section.
  • Should I be more specific and change it to “The devices were promotional electronic placards”?
    • Yes, you could get even a little more specific by saying something like "The devices used were"
      • Done.
• a printed circuit board (PCB) with black soldermask, — I think there needs to be an a after with and before black
  • Done.
• At the bottom was a pack — comma after bottom
  • Done.
• Ignignokt and Err, displaying the middle finger — I don’t think a comma is needed but I am unsure
  • Done.
• Lite-Brite electric toy in appearance. — in appearance isn’t really needed as it kinda says that earlier in the sentence
  • So remove the whole sentence or just get rid of the ‘in appearence’ so something like: “Others compared the displays to the Lite-Brite electric toy”?
    • SlySabre just remove in appearance
      • Done.

Subsequent panic

Alright sorry for the delay, I had vertigo and stomach pains the past few day, but now I’m all good so let’s get this review done ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 13:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• On January 31, 2007, at 8:05 a.m., a passenger spotted — a passenger of what?
  • I’m not sure if it was a passenger in a vehicle or what, should I replace passenger with person or civilian?
    • I would look through the refs and see if any of them say it was a passenger in something if not then civilian is fine
      • Yeah the source wasn’t specific so I’ve changed it to a civilian.
• told a policeman with the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) — it sounds like the policeman and the MBTA are working separately when using the word with, when in really the policeman works for the MBTA.
  • So replace with “a policeman working for the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)?
    • No I would just change the word with, with something like from
      • Done.
• Peter Berdovsky, who had placed the device, — Who had placed the device is not needed to tell us who Berdovsky is, because that is explained in the section Planning
  • Done.
• went to the scene and video I don’t think went is the right word here
  • Not sure what else to put instead, arrived?
    • I’ve changed it to “arrived at the scene”.
• contacted Interference, the company who had hired him to place the lights. — the company who had hired... this is not needed as it is explained in an warlike right section
  • Done.
• During the preliminary investigation at the site, police found that the device shared "some characteristics with improvised explosive devices". These characteristics include an identifiable power source, circuit board with exposed wiring, and electrical tape. — shorten/summarize this since it is mentioned before already
  • I shortened it some but I’m not very good at figuring out how else to do so.
• to traffic at about 10:05 a.m — don’t use at about just choose one of them
  • Not sure what else to put, around? I can’t find the specific time.
• By 10:21 a.m. the — comma before the
  • Done.
• At 1:11 p.m. the Massachusetts State Police requested — comma before the
  • Done.
• requested Berdovsky "keep everything — to needed before the quotation mark
  • Done.
• Travis Vautour, a friend of Berdovsky, stated: "We received an email in the early afternoon from Peter that asked the community that he's a part of to keep any information we had on the down low and that was instructed to him by whoever his boss was." — this is not needed when the sentence before that literally says this. Maybe you can say something like his friend also confirmed it, but that whole quote is not needed
  • Done.
• Portions of the Turner statement read: — the whole big quote after this can most certainly be summarized not in quotes
  • I tried my best, let me know what you think.
• Berdovsky and Stevens, the individuals hired by Interference to install the signs — yet again no need to disambiguate who they are as it is mentioned earlier
  • Done.
• the evening of January 31, and charged with violating — comma not needed
  • Done.

Reactions

• There should be a lead sentence for the beginning of this section
  • Done.
• quoting one 29-year-old blogger as writing "Repeat after me – I don't think the word as is needed, Also comma needed after blogger and after writing
  • Done.
• "Emergency personnel and anti-terrorism squads shut down more than a dozen highways, transit stations and other locations across the city Wednesday after receiving reports about multiple suspicious devices. The slender, placemat-sized items had dozens of colored lights, exposed wires, and circuitry, and were powered by a row of D batteries wrapped in black tape. In other words, they looked like an upscale version of Hasbro's Lite-Brite, a toy for artistic grade schoolers." – this quote can be trimmed and summarized
  • Done.
• which it labeled a fiasco – which they labeled
  • Done.
• Phillip Torrone said the advertisers – said that the
  • Done.
• On February 27, 2007, just a month after the incident, the Boston police bomb squad detonated another suspected bomb, which turned out to be a city-owned traffic counter. – this does not need to be its own paragraph
  • Done.
• just a month after the incident – remove the word just
  • Done.
• Massachusetts politicians joked about it. – Since the most recent thing mentioned was above, the word it sounds like its talking about that and not the Boston Mooninite bomb panic
  • Done.

Aftermath

• Link Stuart Snyder to List of presidents of Cartoon Network#Stuart Snyder (2007–2014)
  • Done.
• It was leaked online - It was later leaked online
  • Done.

Historical legacy

• Packer stated the discovery — Packer started that
  • Done.

Sources

Reliability

What makes these sources reliable

• graffitiresearchlab.com (ref 14) - I clicked on the link and I got stopped from opening it by my laptop saying my connection was not private. So I clicked on the archive link and I don't see any signs of it be reliable
  • Source and sentence removed.
• filmfodder.com (ref 24)
  • Where do you see this at, reference 24 is mass.gov, not filmfodder.com?
    • its now ref 23 start of title is Movie News
      • Ok, thank you for letting me know. The sentence and reference are now removed.
• Schneier.com(ref 30) - Im unsure about the reliability about this one as it looks like a blog, but it is written by Bruce Schneier so let me look into it more.
  • Should I remove it?
    • Leave for now
• Flickr (ref 41) - Flickr is not a reliable source
  • You mean reference 40, not reference 41. Anyways it has now been removed.
    • FYI its ref 40 now because you removed a previous source lowering it to that number
• YouTube (ref 56) - definitly not reliable
  • Reference 56 is arstechnica.com, not YouTube, and I can't find any YouTube links or sources on the page.
    • @SlySabre: its now ref 54 start of title is Boston Bomb Scare
      • It’s removed now.
• Arstechnica (ref 58)
  • This is actually reference 56, it has been removed.
• Interrobang.com (ref 65)
  • Actually reference 62, it is now removed.

maybe more to come...

Verifiabilty

• Reference 4 is a deadlink
  • The archive link is listed in the reference and is working: https://web.archive.org/web/20070206212122/http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/breaking_news/2007/01/bomb_squad_remo.html
• In reference 62 the page number is needed
  • I've removed several non reliable/notable references and the numbers for the sources have changed. Do you remember the website name/link?
• In the last sentence in the section subsequent panic it says Both were held at the State Police South Boston barracks overnight and were released on US$2,500 bail from the Charlestown Division of Boston Municipal Court the following morning. but has no citation
  • Yeah I couldn't find a source for this either so I removed it.

more to come...

• Ref 1 dead link
  • On the archive link as part of the reference, it says my connection is not private when I went on the website.
• Ref 2 dead link
  • Same as above, the archive says my connection is not private.
• Ref 16 dead link
  • The archive link included in the reference is working for me: https://web.archive.org/web/20070203050621/http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/01/boston.bombscare/
• Something is wrong with ref 17
  • Again, I've removed several references so I'm not really sure which site you are referring to here since the order of references has changed since but if it's bpdnews.com, then the archive link is working for me: https://web.archive.org/web/20070203120922/http://www.bpdnews.com/2007/02/message_from_the_police_commis_2.html
• @SlySabre: Ok a lot of these references are messed up. Some of the links stop me from opening them then others are dead links I suggest using Citation bot and see if you can fix some of these references. If not i might have to fail this. The article looks good but these refs are messed up. Also please tell me if ref 14, when you open it, stops you from continuing because the connection is not private.
  • That reference has been removed so we don't have to worry about that anymore.

more to come...

Here is an example of how i will list this... ref 98 (author last name if no name given start of the title): reason

• ref 1 (Byron): I open up the regular link it says page not found. I open up the archive link it says connection not secure. You might have to manually fix the dead links like this one and the coming ones
  • Changed archive link to Internet Archive making a back-up now accessible
• ref 5 (Suspicious' Package): open up regular link it says page not found and there is no archive link.
  • I have removed the reference.
• ref 13 (Levenson): i open up the regular link and it says could not load page and archive link says connection not secure
  • There’s two references for two separate news articles from the same site and person who wrote the two articles. Should I remove them both or one, and if one, then which one?
    • that’s weird... remove the second one (aka the one retrieved on Feb. 1). It’s the one that doesn’t work
      • Yeah the second reference doesn’t work but the first does. It is now removed.
• ref 15 (Pombo): regular link says not secure and archive link says site cant be reached
  • Changed archive link to Internet Archive making a back-up now accessible
• ref 24 (Possession, transportation): open regular link it says page not found and archive link says connection not secure
  • Changed archive link to Internet Archive making a back-up now accessible
• ref 26 (Glenn): regular link says site cant be reached. archive link says connection not secure
  • Removed sentence and reference because WebCite doesn't work anymore and it wasn't backed up on the Internet Archive so the site isn't accessible anymore.
• ref 32 (Suspects Refuse): regular link says page not found archive link says connection not secure
  • Archive link fixed. (getting tired of repeating "switched webcite link to one from internet archive"; so I'll just say this instead going further)
• ref 33 (Blown out of): regular link says page not found archive link says connection not secure
  • Archive link fixed.
• ref 37 (State of Massachusetts): regular link says page not found archive link says connection not secure
  • Archive link fixed.
• ref 39 (Boston police blow up): archive link says page not found regular link says connection not secure
  • Removed due to very little text on the original site to begin with, only being a couple of sentences.
• ref 40 (Doctorow): regular link says page not found archive link says connection not secure
  • Removed due to issues with reliability.
• ref 44 (Toosi): archive link says page not found regular link says connection not secure
  • Archive link fixed.
• ref 46 (Harrell): archive link says page not found regular link says connection not secure
  • Removed due to WebCite archive not working and none of the archives on the Wayback Machine worked either.
• ref 59 (Marotta): page needed
  • I removed it, besides, it was something trivial anyways so it’s not like it contributed to a great amount in the article, thank goodness, which makes things much easier with this process.
• ref 60 (Exclusive Interview): regular link says page not found archive link says connection not secure
  • Changed archive link to Internet Archive making a back-up now accessible

Ok I gave it a second look @SlySabre:

Other

images

• File:Zebbler 2012 (8266396258).jpg I would use that picture right under planning and move the lit up device under devices
  • Done.
• A picture of a light-bright can be used in reactions
  • Done.
    • I would put a better caption. Something like a ‘lite-bright which many compared the devices with.’ Not exactly that but u know what I mean
      • Is it okay now?
• I would also maybe use one of the images of Bruce Schneier and Mayor Thomas M. Menino in historical legacy
  • Done.
• Don’t forget to put suitable captions for the images
  • All of them have captions but I’d need you to check them to make sure whether or not they’re okay or need rewritten.

broadness

• some of these refs can maybe be used [1] [2] [3]

I have placed the article on hold and will wait for you to do everything I have left in the review and then give it a 2nd look. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 13:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

It should also be expanded a bit on "historical legacy" with this highly reliable source (2022), Polygon here [4]. 2001:4455:364:A800:C4C5:27A:717B:12C1 (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

The images should also be placed in the right section per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images, and the irrelevant ones should be removed. 2001:4455:364:A800:C4C5:27A:717B:12C1 (talk) 03:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Other comments

Someone removed the image on Subsequent panic, are you okay with this? SlySabre (talk) 12:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I added it back and fixed one small thing. Other than that I think I liked what you did now I will give it a second look. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 12:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks for letting me know! SlySabre (talk) 13:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Second look

• Peter "Zebbler" Berdovsky needs to be linked in the lead
  • Done.
• In a 2012 article The Boston Phoenix — comma after 2012
  • Do you mean comma after article?
    • Yes my bad
      • Done.
• electronic signs and, Adrienne Yee of Interference — the comma needs to be on the other side of the word and.
  • You mean like before, so like this? “-signs, and Adrienne Yee of Interference”
    • yes
      • Done.
• Peter “Zebbler” Berdovsky (pictured) — (pictured) is not needed in the caption
  • Done.
• in devices, Ignignokt and Err can be linked to list of Mooninite characters
  • Done.
• Martha Coakley said the device — said that the device
  • Done.
• the second half of the first paragraph in devices doesn’t seem to have a ref unless it’s the later 10 and 11 ref verifying that info. If 10 and 11 verify that info they should also be placed at the end of the 1st paragraph
  • I checked references 10 and 11, and unfortunately, they do not seem to mention this. Additionally I checked online and couldn’t find these descriptions of the devices either. Should we go ahead and remove it anyways since there wasn’t a source?
    • I would try to dig deeper and I will also later look as this seems like it should be in the article
• Travis Vautour, a friend of Berdovsky, confirmed that he would be staying quite while the situation was being reported. — Later, Travis Vautour
  • Done.
• concerning the event at around 4:30 p.m. — concerning the event around 4:30 p.m.
  • Done.
• danger, and ensured that they weren’t — no comma and use were not and not it’s contraction form as it’s unencyclcopedic
  • Done.
• They clarified further — They further clarified
  • Done.
• evening of January 31 and — comma after 3
  • Done.

more to come...

• highways, transit stations and other locations — comma after stations
  • Done.
• Boston dies down". It further said the incident — said that
  • Done.
• and that the police response was — police’s
  • Done.
• St. Patrick's Day Breakfast in South Boston, Massachusetts — comma after Massachusetts
  • Done.
• Tom Menino said it was a good — said that
  • Done.
• At 9:30 p.m. on the evening of January 31, — comma after 9:30 p.m.
  • Done.
• A device was placed in inside 11th Ave. Liquor — remove in
  • Done.

more to come...

• Bruce Schneier (pictured) wrote about the incident in his book, Schneier on Security, which was released in 2009 — removed (pictured)
  • Done.
• Move the picture of Thomas Menino down to the 6th paragraph in historical legacy and remove (pictured; D-Massachusetts) and , seen a year later in 2008 wearing a white shirt
  • Done.
• similar event, and surmised that marketing — commas not needed
  • Done.
• Zebbler, and he stated he thought the — he stated that
  • Done.
• Zebbler said he would take part — said that
  • Done.
• Zebbler said it was an honor to be — said that
  • Done.
• law enforcement from 2007: "This was — put something like saying or stating after 2007
  • Done.

What makes these refs reliable

• starpulse.com (ref 51)
  • Hmm… no idea. I tried looking them up online but couldn’t find a whole lot. Should I just remove the sentence and reference?
    • I would just remove the ref as the geek.com ref mentions that. The geek.com ref also mentions some stuff about the devices
      • Done.

Alright I think I am done with the review and will wait for all changes to be made before passing. I will also have a wikifriend be my GA mentor to look over my review. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 00:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18: I think we’re almost done other than with the reliability of starpulse.com and that one paragraph in devices.

I’m like you, the info in devices is sort of important, but I’ve kept looking and looking and can not find any source for any of that online. I’ve even looked up specifics like the battery brand and other small details listed there but when I search that, all of the news sites don’t mention the details about the devices. I’m not sure what else to do at this point. SlySabre (talk) 12:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

All right good to know. I’ll see what the GA mentor says, but we might have to remove it ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 14:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I’ve changed it. Let me know if it works now. SlySabre (talk) 02:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• At the request of reviewer Caleb, I have looked over the comments in this review, as well as the particularly noted Devices sentence. I think that the comments and explanations in this review are all very good, and the reviewer's interventions in editing the article have been appropriate, minimal, and fully discussed, so all is good there!
  The Devices sentence, about the components, is a tricky spot. There are arguments that it went into too much detail, or that, with the article subject being a mistaken bombing, no amount of detail can be too much. Not all of the details are found in reliable sources, and the sentence has been edited, which has me question if the article can be complete without such details, or if it is only appropriate to include details in RS which it is presumed the investigation believes is all the information that is needed to be revealed. As it is, the edits made to this sentence satisfy me as some elusive compromise answering all those questions and arguments. I think it is a satisfactory level of coverage for GA. Looks good to me. Kingsif (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Awesome and thanks for looking over my review @Kingsif:! Congratulations @SlySabre: I will now be passing the article as a GA. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 16:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you both for taking the time to manage the review, I appreciate it! SlySabre (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)