Talk:Killer toy/GA1

GA Review

Passed. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 16:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: GhostRiver (talk · contribs) 14:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. My name is GhostRiver, and I'll be carrying out this good article review. Your nomination will be assessed against the good article criteria, and I will provide feedback to help this article reach GA quality. Once I complete my preliminary review, you will have 7 days to respond to my suggestions before I deliver a final verdict. Please ping me when you are finished. — Ghost River 14:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thebiguglyalien, I wanted to let you know that I have not forgotten about this review. Last week I suffered a death in the family and I've been taking time to grieve. Thank you for your understanding. — Ghost River 21:58, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw the notice on your userpage. There's no rush, take however long you need. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. [[MOS:|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

New reviewer needed

Per User talk:GhostRiver#Incomplete GA reviews, GhostRiver has asked me to mark this review as available for a new reviewer to take over; she is "not in the headspace" to be doing reviews. Thank you for considering doing this review. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will take this up, seems like a fascinating article! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thebiguglyalien, only one comment below, very nice work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk, I've added an archive link to the image. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is well-written and free of typos- well done!
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No words to watch or lists. Article is well-cited on fictional parts, layout makes sense, lead is well-written.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Refs are placed in a proper "References" section.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Most sources are to journal articles about the psychological effects of the toys, and the rest are to various news/magazine articles, all reliable.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Quick spotcheck for the fun of it; selecting at random, AGF on locked sources: 2a: good 3c: good 4b: good 5b: good 8b: good 9c: good 11b: good All come up clear, no OR visible.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig shows no violations.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Addresses the history, psychological effects, and themes across the genre; all good.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Stays focused throughout.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No bias visible.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit warring.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	~~File:Mori Uncanny Valley.svg - source link is dead~~ Images are properly tagged.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant and properly captioned.
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.