Talk:Theatre of Pain/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 07:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

On first glance seems a bit messy but I will look into further detail soon. --K. Peake 07:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quick fail

Saddens me to do this since you were very eager after finding out that I was reviewing this article, but it will have to be failed by me immediately. This is because there are multiple tags for unsourced information, as well as many citations in the infobox/lead which is not an appropriate procedure. The lead itself is poorly written, while the charts and certifications sections are not laid out well at all. Sorry for this quick fail. --K. Peake 07:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize, it's a learning experience. SolarFlash^Discussion 08:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]