Talk:Tomb of Horrors/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
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.
- I do wonder what a "demi-lich" is if a lich is "an undead creature, a spellcaster".
However, this passes as a GA, without an answer to that.
Final GA review (see here for criteria)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): Well written
b (MoS): Follows MoS
- a (prose): Well written
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR
- a (references): Well referenced
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): Sets the context b (focused): Remains focused on subject
- a (major aspects): Sets the context
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias: NPOV
- Fair representation without bias: NPOV
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Congratulations! —Mattisse (Talk) 01:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)