237:. The Twitter sources are by @cobrakaiseries. I'm happy to consider other policies, etc. Sources are those by @cobrakaiseries, one Instagram by Matt Ryan. Please excuse me for adding more tasks to sources; It's been awhile since I've done reviews, such as in DYKs. I have now verified each link one-by-one; they are all active and seem reliable. Just what's left is the social media links, and I found there were a few more Twitter links than in my first sweep. Once that is satisfied, I do believe the sources section should be done.
400:
and looked reliable. These aren't sources I'm familiar with but I did think they passed muster. It's a well written and cited piece of work. And you were a pleasure to work with, so thanks for that too. Bearing with me in my first article review (not counting several QPQs in DYK of course. There's some duplication there that helped me. Anyway, good luck with your further works; perhaps we will meet again.
443:
42:
302:
Regarding the length, I can fix that if need be, sorry that I forgot to address it. Just to clarify do you just mean that the title of the sources is too long? (If so, that's an easy fix!) As for the copy editing I'm fine either way, if it's easier for you to do it, I don't mind; otherwise, just let
283:
Hi! I'm not above asking for help when I need it. Some help from a familiar editor who has done who myriad more in good articles and FAs; also been here a lot longer pointed me in the right direction (policies for good articles) and some good advice. We are all good now. The tweets pass in this case
179:
My first note is that I did reviews on episodic tv articles for my QPQ in DYK, so you won't have to worry I'll want sources for the places where they are typically not required as such in the episode summaries, etc. I also saw your other Good articles for this show and that will aid me in reviewing.
252:
that you pointed to says that
Twitter sources are okay for claims about themselves as long as there is not a reasonable doubt to its authenticity. The @cobrkaiseries account is verified so any claims from that page should be okay. The Zach Robinson Twitter account is also verified and the Matt Ryan
399:
Well, this review went pretty smoothly overall I think, and many reasons why lay at your doorstep. You did a great job in all of the 5 categories. I just had to check the boxes off and fix some small issues. Just so you know, I did check each source by clicking through to make sure each one worked
549:
B. all inline 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
371:
The tweet adjustments you made look great. I have just completed another small copyedit on the article looking for small things. Mostly, it was just adding punctuation for sentences to join two independent clauses together, or other missing punctuation, fixing tenses, possessives, etc. I feel
225:
Ok, so I took a look at your sources. There are a few issues to address. I like to get the resources done first. Mainly because changing these can cause content changes too and then if you have done the other issues you have to repeat or do over those changes, like grammar and manual of style
166:
Hi, I'm planning to review this article for good article status. Feel free to talk to me here. I'm pretty available right now. I'm in the first stages of learning to review good articles. But I have many years of editing so this should be no problem.
333:
Hi, thank you so much. To clarify, references 30 and 31, the titles are very long. They are tweets, which explains the length. It's up to you if you'd like to shorten them. I appreciate your patience in these matters. I'll work on the prose now.
372:
confident it is complete now. You did a great job on it, which left me little to edit overall. The tone was very neutral, the POV neutral, which also helped. I should be able to sign off this soon.
290:
Now I'd like to go over the content, mostly just a copy edit as nothing shouts out to me regarding tone. Can I just do it and you can check it over or would you prefer that I make a list?
253:
source easily checks numbers 1, 2, and 3 of the same criteria, leaning towards 4 as well since
Robinson mentioned Ryan in his tweet. I have merged the duplicate sources. Thanks,
47:
435:
Thank yo again for the additional copyedits. It was fantastic working with you as well; if you have any questions about any future GA articles or just anything about
80:
345:
I've shortened the title of both to the important part that supports the claim in the article. The copyediting you've done looks fantastic, huge thanks for that!
126:
70:
122:
233:. Also, two resources appear to be duplicates that could be combined. The five sources are all Twitter sources, except for one Instagram source. Also
511:
107:
284:
since they are as you said regarding tweets about the person tweeting or the Cobra Kai account, etc. If you don't mind the length, that is also ok.
52:
503:
99:
156:
507:
75:
558:
542:
A it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;:
649:
A. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content;
234:
229:
1. There are five sources that have the following issues: a. They are too long, and b. They are
Twitter resources
499:
115:
525:
17:
439:
and related WikiProjects don't hesitate to drop a message on my talk page, I'd be more than happy to help!
464:
363:
321:
271:
209:
150:
573:
569:
191:
Fantastic, I'm looking forward to working with your review to get this article to GA status! Thanks,
92:
629:? The article has almost no edits going back a month now and then starting up with this review.
491:
A. The prose is clear and concise. Spelling and grammar are correct. I made some minor edits.
447:
420:
346:
304:
254:
249:
230:
192:
642:
424:
401:
373:
335:
291:
238:
181:
168:
146:
477:
610:
467:
429:
406:
378:
366:
340:
324:
296:
274:
243:
212:
186:
173:
160:
423:
Some things I still need to learn to do like pinging the editor. Your GA passed!
599:
B. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail
436:
656:
B. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
134:
103:
614:? Yes its viewpoints are fair and without bias.
592:A. it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
8:
550:follow the scientific citation guidelines;
30:
303:me know what needs to be fixed! Thanks,
61:
33:
7:
440:
640:Is it illustrated, if possible, by
24:
441:
1:
688:
468:05:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
430:03:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
407:02:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
379:23:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
367:04:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
341:18:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
325:18:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
297:20:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
275:03:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
244:20:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
213:02:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
187:23:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
174:22:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
161:22:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
576:. I used Earwing on it.:
498:B. It complies with the
18:Talk:Cobra Kai season 4
587:broad in its coverage
570:copyright violations
559:no original research
531:no original research
568:D. It contains no
235:WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK
671:Pass or Fail: Pass
89:
88:
679:
462:
457:
452:
446:
445:
444:
361:
356:
351:
319:
314:
309:
269:
264:
259:
221:GA Review To Dos
207:
202:
197:
139:
130:
111:
43:Copyvio detector
31:
687:
686:
682:
681:
680:
678:
677:
676:
557:C. It contains
502:guidelines for
500:manual of style
458:
453:
448:
442:
357:
352:
347:
315:
310:
305:
265:
260:
255:
223:
203:
198:
193:
120:
97:
91:
85:
57:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
685:
683:
675:
674:
673:
672:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
654:
653:
652:
638:
637:
636:
635:
634:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
606:
605:
604:
603:
602:
597:
596:
595:
583:
582:
581:
580:
579:
566:
565:
564:
555:
554:
553:
547:
546:
545:
540:
539:
538:
521:
520:
519:
518:
517:
512:words to watch
496:
495:
494:
471:
470:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
328:
327:
288:
287:
286:
285:
278:
277:
222:
219:
218:
217:
216:
215:
165:
140:
87:
86:
84:
83:
78:
73:
67:
64:
63:
59:
58:
56:
55:
53:External links
50:
45:
39:
36:
35:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
684:
670:
669:
667:
664:
658:
657:
655:
651:
650:
648:
647:
645:
644:
639:
633:
632:
631:
630:
628:
624:
618:
617:
616:
615:
613:
612:
607:
601:
600:
598:
594:
593:
591:
590:
588:
584:
578:
577:
575:
571:
567:
563:
562:
560:
556:
552:
551:
548:
544:
543:
541:
537:
536:
535:
534:
532:
528:
527:
522:
516:
515:
513:
509:
505:
504:lead sections
501:
497:
493:
492:
490:
489:
487:
483:
482:
481:
480:for criteria
479:
475:
469:
466:
463:
461:
456:
451:
438:
434:
433:
432:
431:
428:
427:
422:
408:
405:
404:
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
390:
389:
380:
377:
376:
370:
369:
368:
365:
362:
360:
355:
350:
344:
343:
342:
339:
338:
332:
331:
330:
329:
326:
323:
320:
318:
313:
308:
301:
300:
299:
298:
295:
294:
282:
281:
280:
279:
276:
273:
270:
268:
263:
258:
251:
248:
247:
246:
245:
242:
241:
236:
232:
227:
220:
214:
211:
208:
206:
201:
196:
190:
189:
188:
185:
184:
178:
177:
176:
175:
172:
171:
163:
162:
158:
155:
152:
148:
145:
141:
138:
137:
133:
128:
124:
119:
118:
114:
109:
105:
101:
96:
95:
82:
79:
77:
74:
72:
69:
68:
66:
65:
60:
54:
51:
49:
46:
44:
41:
40:
38:
37:
32:
26:
19:
665:
641:
626:
609:
586:
530:
524:
486:well written
485:
473:
472:
459:
454:
449:
425:
421:TheDoctorWho
419:
402:
374:
358:
353:
348:
336:
316:
311:
306:
292:
289:
266:
261:
256:
239:
228:
224:
204:
199:
194:
182:
169:
164:
153:
143:
142:
135:
131:
117:Article talk
116:
112:
93:
90:
81:Instructions
426:dawnleelynn
403:dawnleelynn
375:dawnleelynn
337:dawnleelynn
293:dawnleelynn
240:dawnleelynn
183:dawnleelynn
170:dawnleelynn
147:Dawnleelynn
104:visual edit
574:plagiarism
526:verifiable
250:WP:TWITTER
231:WP:TWITTER
48:Authorship
34:GA toolbox
474:GA Review
226:changes.
144:Reviewer:
71:Templates
62:Reviewing
27:GA Review
478:WP:WIAGA
157:contribs
76:Criteria
666:Overall
611:neutral
127:history
108:history
94:Article
643:images
627:stable
625:Is it
608:Is it
585:Is it
523:Is it
510:, and
508:layout
484:Is it
476:- see
465:(talk)
455:Doctor
437:MOS:TV
364:(talk)
354:Doctor
322:(talk)
312:Doctor
272:(talk)
262:Doctor
210:(talk)
200:Doctor
529:with
136:Watch
16:<
572:nor
151:talk
123:edit
100:edit
460:Who
450:The
359:Who
349:The
317:Who
307:The
267:Who
257:The
205:Who
195:The
668::
646:?
589:?
561::
533:?
514:.
506:,
488:?
159:)
125:|
106:|
102:|
154:·
149:(
132:·
129:)
121:(
113:·
110:)
98:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.