| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because there are disagreements as to which information is relevant, trivial, etc. Also this article needs an objective point of view to review it.
Thanks, Rebel shadow (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Kay... What disagreements are you referring to exactly? You suggested that we split off a bunch of sections to make a new article, when the content is only really relevant to the main page. There are plenty of other character pages that describe it in better detail.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: The instructions at the top of the peer-review page say in part that articles to be reviewed "must be free of major cleanup banners". This one is festooned with banners. Glancing at the article, I see that big chunks of it lack sources. I'd suggest starting by resolving disagreements, if any, among contributing editors and addressing the issues raised by the banners. Also, please add reliable sources for the article's claims per WP:V. A good rule of thumb is to cite a source for every paragraph, every set of statistics, every direct quotation, and every claim that is extraordinary or that is challenged or is likely to be challenged. Finetooth (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)