Talk:The Return of Harmony

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TBrandley (talk · contribs) 05:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Um... ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruce Campbell (talk • contribs)

Doing. TBrandley 01:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• Image doesn't pass WP:NFCC, as it doesn't help reader understand topic itself. Expand rationale or remove please.

Actually the file page for the image offers a rationale; "To illustrate a poignant scene in the episode (infobox). The episode focuses on the six main ponies attempts to locate the Elements of Harmony and eradicate Discord. The screenshot not only illustrates the main characters, it also illustrates what the Elements of Harmony are and how they work. In addition, the art style of the episode was praised by one reviewer and this screenshot, of the climax of the episode, helps illustrate the animation style." If this isn't still appropriate I'll just remove it, not a big deal either way. Bruce Campbell (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• Where are the production codes or running time referenced?
• household rating should be Nielsen household rating, which should be linked

Done. Bruce Campbell (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• Direct quotes, as seen in plot, need to be referenced

Changed all instances of direct quotes to just general prose. Bruce Campbell (talk) 00:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Link The Hub in first mention, per WP:UNDERLINK
• "Executive Producer" and "Consulting Producer" shouldn't be in capitals, per MOS:CAPS
• "The episodes were the final episodes" to "The episodes were the final to"
• "%" should be "percent"
• "Many reviews and articles" should be "Many critics", cause they said so
• Don't "shout" in reference titles
• Ref. 5 is missing accessdate
• Categories should be sorted in alphabetical order

All simple enough changes; done. Bruce Campbell (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• I see some issues at the article's peer review page, they weren't addressed, but now do need to be, please fix them

Indeed; some very helpful comments, and I believe I have applied them where necessary (some were already done). Bruce Campbell (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

TBrandley 17:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I hit all your points, and if not instruct me further. Bruce Campbell (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks fine now. Passing. TBrandley 22:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Return of Harmony. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://thevoiceoftv.com/nielsen-tv-ratings/saturday-september-17-2011-broadcast-cable-final-ratings/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Plot: Part one and Plot: Part two are not "too long or excessively detailed"

The sections "Plot: Part one" and "Plot: Part two" have recently been tagged with

"This article's plot summary may be too long or excessively detailed. Please help improve it by removing unnecessary details and making it more concise."

I'd like to cast a vote for the position

"The sections 'Plot: Part one' and 'Plot: Part two' are not actually "too long or excessively detailed", and nothing currently needs to be done to improve them."

- 189.122.52.73 (talk) 07:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, they have to be shortened under 400 words per MOS:TV#Plot section.