This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Look for the Light article. This is
not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about
television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can
join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the
style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in
film,
literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
In Reception, please change "demonstrating terror, fragility, and terror" to "demonstrating terror and fragility" or something else to get rid of the echo.
Neftalirr (
talk)
19:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
this nomination's talk page,
the article's talk page or
Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Article is new enough and long enough. Cursory look shows no uncited claims. QPQ is done. Overall, everything looks—uh, oh. Earwig is showing a 93% copyvio likelihood based on
IMD? This is probably a false positive assuming the IMDB editor took the info from the wiki page, but I'll need you to get back to me before I properly pass it. Assuming it gets passed, I'd go with any of the given hooks, except ALT5, which isn't too interesting. ALT1 is a bit confusing; did they accept the request, film the alternate ending, then remove it, or did they refuse to make the alternate ending altogether?
Krisgabwoosh (
talk)
20:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)reply
I like ALT4 and I know they are real giraffes or live giraffes because I made the connection to the Calgary Zoo in the article. But perhaps we need to explicitly state it in the article "real giraffes".
Bruxton (
talk)
15:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)reply
GA review (see
here for what the criteria are, and
here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
Several critics are named as Publication X's "Last name". For instance "Den of Geek's Boo" is mentioned three times, twice as "Den of Geek's Boo" in the last paragraph. Is there a better way to phrase it after the first mention? Perhaps as simply just Boo?
@
OlifanofmrTennant: It has been three weeks since your last edit on this page. Do you plan to continue the review or should it be closed so the article can wait for a different reviewer? -- ZooBlazer19:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
OlifanofmrTennant: Thanks for the review. To clarify your concerns: Den of Geek's Boo is a little repetitious but I believe it would be inconsistent and potentially confusing to rephrase, and the two uses are far apart anyway; EverythingGP is a local
Grande Prairie publication, used here to verify uncontroversial production information; and there are several negative/critical comments in the Reception section, especially the last paragraph. Please let me know if you have any other questions or concerns. –
Rhain☔ (
he/him)23:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply