This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to
comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the
current tasks, visit the
notice board,
the attached article or discuss it at the
project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
This redirect 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.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to
animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can
the article attached to this page, help out with the
open tasks, or contribute to the
discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
Night of the Sentinels was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the
good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be
renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Not Yet the prose is too informal, particularly in the plot section. The tense of the section is inconsistant, and the language is generally very unprofessional ("suddenly the sentinels appear!") it is my opinion that the plot section needs to be completely rewritten into a professional, neutral, consistant tone.
Not Yet The aforementioned plot section is highly slanted in its coverage of the episode towards a "suspense" format, and it is biased towards the "good guys" of the series. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is intended to convey everything in a neutral tone.
I fixed the references and none are repeating now, and I also fixed the plot, although I don't get most of the stuff you said, and i think I fixed everything. Could you explain a little more specifically and see if your comments are met now.
Gman124 (
talk)
17:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)reply
2nd GA Review
To finally end the nominations past their first week, I am re-reviewing them all.
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have
fair use rationales:
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with
suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Unfortunately, not enough improvements were made to pass the article. Fisrt off, the article is not written well. It uses terms like "part 1" and "imdb.com" instead of proper grammar. The external links need clean-up, one "link" dosen't even take you anywhere! Also, the article does not have many references, just 14 to be in fact. There's only one picture, at least two are needed to pass. After checking grammar and adding more images, the article can be re-nominated.
Limetolime (
talk)
21:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)reply
I've quick failed this article. None of the issues mentioned in the previous GA have been adequately addressed at all. The article uses many questionable sources that to not meet
WP:RS, is poorly written, poorly formatted and organized, and contains pointless trivia.
AnmaFinotera (
talk)
19:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)reply