Talk:Static Shock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Milestone characters[edit]

Um, hello? Anonymous guy at 195.92.168.whatever? Could you maybe register so that it'll be easier to communicate with you about the Milestone characters? Thanks. DS 20:05, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The bit about Shiv being based on Plus (and thence on Green Lantern) comes directly from Dwayne McDuffie, the creator: I asked him to check out this page and tell me if he saw anything blatantly false. Please don't change it again. I know I'm the one who added the Dagger connection in the first place, but it was wrong.

Also, you don't have to boldface every occurence of every character's name. It doesn't look good.

That said, you've been doing a good job. DS 15:34, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

1 - Thank you for the "That said, you've been doing a good job"
2 - How can Shiv's powers be based on Plus? I looked up the Marvel Comics character - Dagger and she's also generating Light Energy into blades (Daggers); however Plus - she was a Two-in-One being with the power of flight and the projection of force-fields, and I'v never seen Shiv fly - ever!
3 - I "boldface every occurence of every character's name" so that the name will stand out.
4 - As for Leach; those "Suckers" on the palms of his hands so do remind me big-time of the "Suckers" on the palms of the hands of Michael Morbius the Living Vampire from the 94-98 animated series of Spider-Man. He is sort of a mix of Parasite from the Animated adventures of Superman and Morbius the Living Vampire from the animated series of Spider-Man - the "Suckers" and the ability to drain Super-Powers from other Meta-Humans.
5 - Speaking of the 94-98 animated series of Spider-Man; in Season 3, in episode 32. Sins of the Fathers Chapter 5: The Rocket Racer - Robert Farrell, who steals some gyroscopic rocket technology from the bad guys - fixes it on to his skateboard and starts surfing on the walls of buildings by using Magnetism on the buildings Infrastructure - sounds like a referance to Static.
User:Mare-Silverus 10:25, 19, Jun 2004
Since you are looking for connections to previous characters, let me give some info:
- Parasite has been adapted to the animated series continuity, but he is actually a 1960s character created by Jim Shooter, who would go on to become Marvel's Editor-in-chief, arguably the best the company ever had.
- Likewise, Morbius comes from Amazing Spider-Man Vol. 1 #101-102.
- Rocket Racer was created by Len Wein (IIRC; it might be Marv Wolfman) in 1970s Amazing Spider-Man. He would appear sporadically but recurrently though the years, going all the way to the Clone Saga at least. He has reformed and sometimes paired of with other slightly ambiguous Spider-Man characters, most notably Hobie Brown aka The Prowler. He (Racer) predates Static by quite a few years.
The magnetic gizmo may however be a reference to Static; IIRC the comic book character did not have that specific trick.
Luis Dantas 11:16, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Rocket Racer did have a magnetic gyroscope thingy in his board that let him ride up walls, at least by his 1980s appearances. -Sean Curtin 11:34, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for all that information (but those "Suckers" on Leaches palms still remind me big-time of Michael Morbius the Living Vampire).
However I'v been thinking of the futures of the STATIC SHOCK characters - personally I do think that Shiv could end up as a early member of the Jokerz from BATMAN BEYOND; seeing as Shiv is such a fan of the Joker himself.
Speaking of BATMAN BEYOND - the Brain Trust if they around in the STATIC SHOCK timeline; how could they resist recruiting Madelyn Spaulding (if she has managed to retain her powers or they might try to restore her powers) - its a possibility.
If the animated series of STATIC SHOCK is allowed to continue; and Ebon and Hot-Streak are separated - seeing as the Joker, Poison-Ivy and Harley Quinn have all tried to recruit Meta-Human help before - I hope to see other villians trying to recruit Bang-Babies (like maybe Volcana, from the animated series of Superman, recruiting Hot-Streak).
I Hope to see Tech and Gear or Steel and Gear working together, I hope to see a explanation for why Static and Gear remembering about a adventure that technically should not of happened since Time-Zone's power no longer exist. I also have ideas for Bang-Babies and powers that I whould like to see on screen.
User:Mare-Silverus 15:12, 19, Jun 2004
P.S. I had to change the STATIC SHOCk page because it was getting too long, would anyone like to alter it properly?
User:Mare-Silverus 18:28, 21, Jun 2004

Okay, some important points. First, I consulted with Dwayne McDuffie about the information here. He is the authoritative source. If he says something is incorrect, it is: for instance, if he says Shiv has nothing to do with Dagger, Shiv has nothing to do with Dagger.

Also, do not do not do NOT put in your ideas for Bang-Babies, or powers, or ANYTHING ELSE that you would like to see in future episodes. Wikipedia is not fanfic. It's great that the show inspires you to be creative, but this is not the place for it.

Furthermore, your speculations about interactions between characters owned by distinct legal entities shows that you're not aware of the relevant intellectual property issues. The ideas you have simply are NOT going to happen on the show. They're not. Trust me.

DS 15:28, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I know this site is an Encyclopedia, not a fanfic so please do not point out the obvious; personally I wish there was a site that did have a section on the subject. I know you said that Shiv is based on Plus and not Dagger, but Shiv's powers still remind me of Daggers. Also STATIC SHOCK didn't just inspire me to be a bit creative - it also inspired me to do better in Chemistry & Physics, I used to be terrible with Chemistry & Physics, my strong point was Biology.
As for my speculations about interactions between characters; its things I think are likly, besides this page is about talking about STATIC SHOCK, so people are allowed to give speculations.
User:Mare-Silverus 12:02, 26, Jun 2004

the Comic Book Series[edit]

How much do you know about the villains and other heroes from the Comic Book Series; Snakefingers, the Botanist, Coil, Run, Jump & Burn, Dr. Kilgore, Prometheus etc - or Dusk, Captain Summers & Palisade?

User:Mare-Silverus 18:17, 21, Aug 2004

Need TV show info[edit]

Might be a good idea to give some info about when this show first ran; the dates, channels, etc. -starwed

Inappropriate additions[edit]

Someone (I'm guessing from the repetition of his previous activity that it's User:Mare-Silverus) has been inserting quotes at the top of this article and two others about Static. As I've explained to him, they do not belong there; this is an encyclopedia, not a fan site, and there are standards for how articles should be structured and what they should contain. This is why I keep removing those quotes, and will continue to remove them as often as necessary. If the person who keeps adding them would like to act like an adult and discuss it, that would be very welcome. Tverbeek 18:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


I've been merging information from pages about various supporting characters into this page and redirecting those pages to this one. With the exception of the title character (who has also been the star of a comics series), none of these are noteworthy enough in themselves to warrant an entire wikipedia entry about them. These mergers are making this article a bit long, but when I'm finished with them, I intend to give the article as a whole some attention to make it more succinct, highlighting the most important information about the series, and leaving the trivia for any zealous fans to document on their own fan sites. Tverbeek 17:52, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Character based on Black Lightning/Black Vulcan?[edit]

No mention of this? [1]

"In the first episode of the series Static Shock, one of the outfits Virgil tries on when he's picking out his superhero costume is an exact duplicate of Black Vulcan's."

Paul Gregory[edit]

"…starring Paul Gregory as Static"

How can a person star as an animated character? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


I've never noticed "Gear" acting gay. And where did the creators say anything about him being gay? And where was the creator's name mentioned? No citations at all. If nobody gives a citation, I'm deleting it. --Phantom.exe 04:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

If people are still looking for the quote about Richie being gay, it can be found here
in post 232, of the official forum before it moved. Maestro was Dwayne McDuffie's name on the forum. But I don't trust my ability to cite it appropriately, I've never edited information on the site so I don't know the system.
--User: Nickoga 22:39, 1 June 2006
It seems a pity that they can't just come out and say this in the show. Not even in episodes intended for export to countries where there is less homophobia, or chaels like Adult Swim that have an older audience viewing later in the day.
Saying that you can't have a homosexual character just because its Y-7 kinda makes America seem backwards and discriminatory. There are foreign cartoons with a Y-7ish audience have homeosexual characters and parents are cool with it in those countries.
--perfectblue 14:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia is founded on trust. If you say that he was originally intended to be gay, I trust you. I'm bad at citations as well.

--Phantom.exe 18:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh....yes, actually Richie was gay in the comicbooks. Took Virgil 5 or 6 issues to get over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the reason for the trouble there is that it is against some religions. Besides that, many people are disurbed by the concept. (I know that sounds discriminatory but I don't know how else to put it.) It's a very real possibility that the voice actors or animators wouldn't be willing to portray the concept in the show. Though, the show does deal with such concepts as racism. -Brandonrc2 (Not logged in.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Mental problems[edit]

Please refrain from usage of saying someone is fat, or in the case of Permafrost, mental problems, it is actually quite offensive and I have changed it to psychiatric problems. Thank you for your cooperation.

And isn't just because you think that the suckers on Leech's hands look like that other thing P.O.V.? 02:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

What would be the correct wording if mental problems are learning or interlect related, rather than 'psychiatric'?
--perfectblue 14:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Static Shock[edit]

"he gained the ability to control and manipulate electromagnetism, and uses these powers to become a superhero named "Static Shock." "

As I'm not a member I won't make any changes to the article, but I think someone should change this, as Virgil call himself "Static" not "static shock.

Nails Theme Song[edit]

What was Nails theme song, who was the artist and what was the song. Usercreate (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required[edit]

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 17:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Video game cancellation[edit]

Is there a reliable source that says the game was cancelled? still has it listed (as "currently unavailable"), so it'd be nice if they could be convinced it's not real. --DocumentN (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This show on Disney XD? Why?[edit]

Am I the only one who is bothered by the fact that this show, along with two other DCAU shows and Pinky and the Brain, is being put on Disney XD, a network that is owned by Disney?! Surely I'm not the only one who hasn't forgotten that The Walt Disney Company and Warner Bros. are bitter enemies! (On the plus side, at least this show doesn't have any available DVD sets; if it did, that would make the decision to put the show on Disney XD even more pointless.) -- (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

C-Class rated for Comics Project[edit]

As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T 14:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

DVD release[edit]

I notice that the article mentions there being no plans for a DVD release. However, there has been some kind of a video release, even if not a complete season. Both Netflix and Amazon carry a Warner Home Video disc containing 6 episodes ("Shock to the System," "Aftershock," "The Breed," "Grounded," "They're Playing My Song" and "The New Kid.") and Netflix also lists a second disc containing 7 more ("Child's Play," "Sons of the Fathers," "Winds of Change," "Bent Out of Shape," "Junior," "Replay" and "Tantrum") which is apparently not yet available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


Can someone please pot the actual logo if the static shock show in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Items Section[edit]

What the hell is this? This is not acceptable in a Wikipedia article, you guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

static shock episodes[edit]

i think there should be a season 5 of static shock —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Static Shock/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 21:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

GA Review on Hold[edit]

  1. Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
  2. NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
  3. Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the Good Article review instructions, and consider reviewing two to three (2-3) GA candidates from good articles nominations, for each one (1) that you nominate. Again, this is optional and a suggestion only, but please do familiarize yourself at least with how to review, and then think about it. Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 01:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct. One of my very few reviews where there are quibbles, below, but much less concerns with the writing style. Quite good job here. I checked with the Copyvio Detector in the GA Toolbox at the top of this GA Review subpage -- and its result was -- "Violation Unlikely 21.3% confidence". This is wonderful! GA Nominator and contributors to the article are to be commended! Thank you!
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. For an article of this size, lede intro sect could be much larger. Recommend expansion to four (4) paragraphs of at least four sentences each. Please be more specific and less vague in lede sect "positively received by television critics" which critics? which publications? "Even though the show received criticism for its jokes and animation" what was wrong with the jokes? what did the critics point out about the animation? which critics? Some layout issues: Please retitle sect Influence as just Reception or Critical reception. Then, move Legacy info to its own parent two-level sect. Then, move Accolades to top of sect. Change current Critical reception sect to Reviews. Audience info can be moved into Broadcast and release, as it is all contemporary with the timeline of the release. Accolades sect can then be moved to the top of the new Critical reception or Reception sect. After that's done, the layout will look much, much better.
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. See below re in-line citations for image captions. Otherwise, great job here.
2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines. Eleven (11) or more, links, have link problems, as shown by Checklinks tool you can find in the GA Toolbox at the top of this page. Please archive those to Wayback Machine by the Internet Archive using WP:CIT citation fields of archiveurl and archivedate. Strongly recommend archiving all other hyperlinks in same manner.
2c. it contains no original research. Article most certainly relies upon a vast preponderance of secondary sources. No issues here.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Article does indeed address major aspects of topic, quite well. No issues here.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Article is large, but also good because it is comprehensive. No issues here.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Very large Critical reception sect, but not enough mention or summary of it, in the lede intro sect, to adequately summarize various points-of-view so as to have an ideally neutral presentation.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Please explain recent problems in article edit history as recent as 16 October 2015. You may want to request semi-protection. Have you tried to post to the users's talk pages that added the info in question, to explain to them what's going on here? Please explain this a bit more. IFF the article is stable after the 7 day period, hopefully that should be okay for the GA Criteria, we'll see.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content. A few problem images: File:Static Shock (TV logo).jpg - please add a more detailed fair use rationale, in the form of a numbered point-by-point argumentation for why the image is fair use, and see for example the way I did it myself in the infobox image for the article The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise - this would go in the sect on the image page Purpose of use. File:Phil.lamarr.2014.jpg - please move this image to Commons, there are helpful tools to assist you with this, at Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons, and I personally recommend User:This, that and the other/For the Common Good, though others are good, as well. File:OnceFutureThing2.jpg - please expand fair use argumentation in Purpose of use sect on this image page, another model you can look at is the way I did it for the infobox image at article, The Land of Gorch.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Some images have in-line citations for captions, while others do not. As you already do this, please make sure all images have in-line citations for info asserted in captions, except for infobox image which is okay.
7. Overall assessment. Placed as GA on Hold for Seven Days. — Cirt (talk) 01:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! — Cirt (talk) 01:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking your time to review it, Cirt!
"For an article of this size, lede intro sect could be much larger." — Well, it has 4,584 words, according to the search engine; it is in compliance with WP:LEADLENGTH.
"Please be more specific and less vague in lede sect [about reception]" — Well, lead is the place to be generic; in the body there are the details.
"Layout issues" — I'm not sure they were really "issues" but I nevertheless followed your suggestion.
"Checklinks tool" — this tool is helpful but sometimes it is not that reliable. I've checked one by one my sources, and they are all I fine. Nevertheless, I archived the refs as you recommmended (in fact, I usually archive the sources of my GAs but I'm a bit lazy sometimes).
"Please explain recent problems in article edit history as recent as 16 October 2015." — Hm, I take it as an isolated case. I removed the section on June 29. There were edits from at least six different editors since then and none of them disagreed with it. And completely random user re-added it on September 14. I was absent from Wikipedia so I didn't notice it until you accepted to review the article. Today, I've left a note on the article talkpage. I hope it clarifies the situation. As an isolated case, I guess semi-protection is not necessary.
"File:Static Shock (TV logo).jpg - please add a more detailed fair use rationale" — Done.
"File:Phil.lamarr.2014.jpg - please move this image to Commons" — Done. However, when I moved it to Commons I found out there were others image of LaMarr so I changed the image because it's better (at least in my opinion) a image in which the person is turned to right and another that the person is turned to the left. The new one is also more contemporary to the show airing.
"File:OnceFutureThing2.jpg - please expand fair use argumentation" — I was hoping for a second opinion, and you can give it if you comfortable doing so. It was already on the article and just preferred to keep it so to not cause any potential problem because someone would say "wow, but it's here for a long time" (like what happened with "Gear's Gadgets" section). I thought it could be serviceable but I was not 100% percent sure about it. What's your opinion on it?
"Some images have in-line citations for captions, while others do not." — Just in case, I've added sources. However, the second double image was the only to had source since the caption contained new information that was not in the body, while others do not. Anyway, I guess it's preferrable to keep a consistency.
PS: As for your suggestion, I'm not that confident on reviewing as English is not my first language. Nevertheless, I sporadically try do it; however, I see I'm far from achieving the proportion of 3/1 (3 reviews per each 1 nominated) and I'm more like 1/2... I'll see what I can do from now on. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Reevaluation by GA Reviewer[edit]

  1. Respectfully disagree, WP:LEAD should be expanded to better reflect the article's body context, at least 3 total paragraphs of 4 sentences each.
  2. WP:NPOV would be much improved, as well, if the lede intro sect represented both some positive and negative critical commentary from a couple highlighted and attributed sources.
  3. Respectfully disagree, vague wording is poor writing, examples -- "positively received by television critics" which critics? which publications? "Even though the show received criticism for its jokes and animation" what was wrong with the jokes? what did the critics point out about the animation?
  4. Layout issues - article looks much better, excellent job, thank you!
  5. Checklinks tool -- - shows only one problem at -- Static Shock on The WB (info) [] --- great job, but can you address this one?
  6. Article edit history -- explanation acceptable, thank you!
  7. File:Static Shock (TV logo).jpg - excellent job, thank you!
  8. File:OnceFutureThing2.jpg - needs better fair use rationale here, just model after your successful job, above, please.
  9. Thank you for adding the image to Commons, glad you were able to find a better one, good for you!
  10. Thank you for increasing consistency and standardization of the image citations, much appreciated!
  11. That one was just a suggestion, and optional only. So long as you've at least taken some time to read and familiarize yourself with the instructions, and then consider the possibility to pay it forward, that is great and that's much appreciated!

Not too much left holding this one up. Address above, and I'll revisit, and then we should be all set to promote, after that, hopefully. :) — Cirt (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

  1. Hm, I don't know; WP:LEADLENGTH is a guideline and it says it would be excessive.
  2. Hm, I guess it would be POV to select a random review and highlight it.
  3. Well, now I've tried to be more specific about the criticism on jokes and animation. And "which critics"? Most of them. I know WP:OTHERSTUFF is a problem but looking at other FAs this seem to be the standard. Considering only the ones with "TV series" (just because of the search engine), Firefly only mention sales and awards; Horrible Histories has a summary "The series was a critical and ratings success ... "; House has audience, distribution and awards; Kampung Boy is the more detailed so far but nevertheless do not mention specific critics by name; Making Waves is probably an exception because it has only 3 episodes; and Thunderbirds article also only give generic information: "the Andersons' most popular and commercially successful series", with effects and music praised.
  4. Ok.
  5. It's an external link to the former official site. Should I remove it?
  6. Ok.
  7. I'll assume you think it's a good image. I'm not sure I was able to do a good for this one because there's less reasons to have it and it's disseminated on Internet.
  8. Ok.
  9. Ok.
  10. Ok.
  11. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

2nd Reevaluation by GA Reviewer[edit]

  1. Strongly disagree about lead length. If that is how you feel that is one of the only sticking points towards the end of what so far was a polite and productive GA Review -- but I could fail this GA for failing WP:LEAD and not functioning as an adequate standalone summary of the entire article's contents, I'm sorry.
  2. It would absolutely not be POV to select a few key reviewers and publications and mention a few in the lede intro sect.
  3. Half a clause of one sentence is not really enough summary of Legacy sect.
  4. Yes, if a link is not functioning properly than you should not remove it but archive it using a citation template and archiveurl and archivedate.
  5. WP:LEAD, at the very top, says " it should ideally contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate." Three or four paragraphs of four sentences each would be appropriate here.
  6. File:OnceFutureThing2.jpg - not much improvement here. Why is this necessary in this article? How is it discussed in the article? Why is a picture better than words to represent this image? Why can't an alternative be found? Be more specific and add more bullet points numbered with additional argumentation, please. Thank you!

A few holdups. Unfortunately, GA Nominator resistance indicates review is trending closer to being failed than being passed. I will revisit one more time before failing the article. — Cirt (talk) 03:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Gabriel Yuji, that was a bit harsh tone of me. I went for a nice 3 mile run and feel a bit more perspective after thinking about this a bit more. Of course you can have a few more attempts to tweak and improve the article during the Seven Day period of GA on Hold. Once again, my apologies for the tone, above. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 22:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Don't worry about the tone, Cirt. I didn't feel offended and it's up to you close it or not.
Now, about your points: I consider the validity of your opinion, but if there is a disagreement, shouldn't we ask for a third opinion? Again, I don't know how I violate WP:LEAD if a part of it (WP:LEADLENGHT) says a short article like this one doesn't need a long lead. Moreover, we have precedents in other TV-related FAs that indicate it is not necessary to be so specific to the point of mentioning a reviewer or a site by name. And of course it would be POV to select a reviewer to mention on the lead because, well, based on what criteria it would be a "key" one? It would be a random and biased choice. Other than that, I think I'm done: archived the external link and improved FUR. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 23:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much, Gabriel Yuji, once again, my apologies about that, I'm sorry. I think we're really close on the remaining issues and it's okay to have a minor disagreement about a point or two, especially after your responsiveness to other points, above. — Cirt (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Passed as GA[edit]

We're close enough on a few minor disagreements that it's no big deal. :)

Passed as GA.

Thanks very much to GA Nominator for the polite and professional demeanor throughout, and for such responsiveness to GA Reviewer recommendations, above. — Cirt (talk) 23:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Gear's Gadgets[edit]

Hi, Gschadha7007, I am the one who removed this section. It fails under the WP:IINFO policy. It can be considered WP:Fancruft and it is not encyclopedical content. Thanks. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)