Talk:Crisis on Earth-X/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: OlifanofmrTennant (talk · contribs) 03:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Vestrian24Bio (talk · contribs) 05:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I will be reviewing this article, expect the initial remarks soon! Vestrian24Bio 05:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EARWIG shows 42.5% - possible violations.
- Its just quoting an interview
According to link-dispenser,
- 2 refs (2 & 10) are potentially spam - replace them.
  - Both are Bleeding Cool which is reliable
- 9 refs need archive links.
In the references,
- refs 28 & 29 are unreliable. (tweet & yt)
  - The tweet would fall under WP:ABOUTSELF
  - The YouTube video would fall under WP:INTERVIEW
- ref 53 isn't formatted correctly.
  - Done
- refs 42, 43, 44, 45 and 46 should be replaced with secondary sources.
  - Couldnt find any non primary sources
Part 1 summary is 202 words, short it down to 200 words.
- Part 1 appears to be only 194 words
Why some guest stars are listed in the table, while some are listes in bullets..?
- No clue, I think it's becuase they only appeared in one part. @Favre1fan93: can you confirm? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vestrian24Bio: Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 13:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. 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