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

Battlestar Wiki:Quality Articles/Cylons (RDM): Difference between revisions

From Battlestar Wiki, the free, open content Battlestar Galactica encyclopedia and episode guide
m comments, I think this one's ready for QA status
Serenity (talk | contribs)
Line 8: Line 8:
I've completed some asthetic and informative adjustments to complete my notion of this entry page, adding notable links to improve its portal-like function. Comments? --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 11:35, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
I've completed some asthetic and informative adjustments to complete my notion of this entry page, adding notable links to improve its portal-like function. Comments? --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 11:35, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
:I'm really, really fond of this page. I think it's pretty much QA material now. Well done. [[User:JubalHarshaw|JubalHarshaw]] 14:37, 18 May 2007 (CDT)
:I'm really, really fond of this page. I think it's pretty much QA material now. Well done. [[User:JubalHarshaw|JubalHarshaw]] 14:37, 18 May 2007 (CDT)
::Yeah, there isn't that much to it, so the article looks more or less perfect for what it's supposed to be. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 14:46, 18 May 2007 (CDT)

Revision as of 19:46, 18 May 2007

This discussion is about Cylons (RDM)'s proposed Quality Article status.
This discussion is being used to help the Cylons (RDM) article achieve quality.

Summary

This is an excellent article in that it makes a great one-page intro to the Cylons of the Re-imagined series. It's also simple, elegant, and functional. JubalHarshaw 19:12, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

Suggestions

I've completed some asthetic and informative adjustments to complete my notion of this entry page, adding notable links to improve its portal-like function. Comments? --Spencerian 11:35, 11 April 2007 (CDT)

I'm really, really fond of this page. I think it's pretty much QA material now. Well done. JubalHarshaw 14:37, 18 May 2007 (CDT)
Yeah, there isn't that much to it, so the article looks more or less perfect for what it's supposed to be. --Serenity 14:46, 18 May 2007 (CDT)