Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: OpalYosutebito (talk · contribs) 01:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Guessitsavis (talk · contribs) 01:34, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• This text uses a disproportionate amount of direct quotations, to a degree that might conflict with MOS. Signed, Guessitsavis (she/they) ^Talk 02:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've been trying my best to paraphrase/shorten direct quotations. Thanks for the help and advice! - OpalYosutebito (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• One of the sources in the sentence criticism section (specifically the Forbes reference) appears to be self published. Do you have another source that could verify the claims made in that section? Signed, Guessitsavis (she/they) ^Talk 02:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Courtesy ping: OpalYosutebito Signed, Guessitsavis (she/they) ^Talk 20:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Working on it right now - OpalYosutebito (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I replaced the Forbes reference with something else a while back. I've been busy with college classes, so that's why my editing has been very sporadic. Right now, I'm cleaning up prose and trying to keep it neutral. - OpalYosutebito (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]