Toggle menu
Toggle personal menu
Not logged in
Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits.

Battlestar Wiki:Quality Articles/Tom Zarek: Difference between revisions

From Battlestar Wiki, the free, open content Battlestar Galactica encyclopedia and episode guide
Serenity (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Jonathan (talk | contribs)
 
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 8: Line 8:


This is indeed one of the best character articles around. Lots of stuff, but not enough information to overwhelm a reader like it's the case with the main character. There might still be some style or formatting edits to be made, but I think that's all. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 08:44, 20 May 2007 (CDT)
This is indeed one of the best character articles around. Lots of stuff, but not enough information to overwhelm a reader like it's the case with the main character. There might still be some style or formatting edits to be made, but I think that's all. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 08:44, 20 May 2007 (CDT)
:Additional comments / another set of eyes requested! [[User:JubalHarshaw|JubalHarshaw]] 00:10, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
:This looks good to me. I think it deserves a nomination for QA. --[[User:Jonathan|Jonathan]] 18:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:47, 30 July 2010

This discussion is about Tom Zarek's proposed Quality Article status.
This discussion is being used to help the Tom Zarek article achieve quality.

Summary

I figured that since it's been nominated for featured status before, it's probably a shoe-in. Could probably use a read-through, maybe a little concision. JubalHarshaw 01:12, 20 May 2007 (CDT)

Suggestions

This is indeed one of the best character articles around. Lots of stuff, but not enough information to overwhelm a reader like it's the case with the main character. There might still be some style or formatting edits to be made, but I think that's all. --Serenity 08:44, 20 May 2007 (CDT)

Additional comments / another set of eyes requested! JubalHarshaw 00:10, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
This looks good to me. I think it deserves a nomination for QA. --Jonathan 18:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)