# Talk:The Legend of Korra: Turf Wars

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Legend of Korra: Turf Wars/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 09:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to take this one for review. I'll be back within the next few days with some feedback on the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I've come up with a few things that I think should be fixed-up before I promote the article:

"follows the events of" is a little tricky in terms of wording, as it can also sometimes be used when talking about what events a work covers. I would prefer something more like "is set after".
I think the reception summary in the lead should come after the announcement and release info. You could even swap their places, so the announcement and release stuff finished the second paragraph and the release info becomes its own third paragraph.
"helped eased" -> "helped ease" or "eased"
I think the sentence about positive feedback to the show in the second production paragraph should be in the first, before the announcement of the comic.
I also think that the artist info from the first production paragraph could be moved down to the third one, to be with the other info on Koh.
Make sure that all internet sources have been archived.
Have a go working through those and let me know if you have an questions. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: Thanks for the review. I think I've addressed your first 5 points, do have a look and let me know if there are any more issues. On the final point, I've archived all the internet sources. Do you mean you'd like me to add the archiveurls and dates to the citations as well? Bennv3771 (talk) 03:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, just so future readers can get to them if something is taken down at any point. I also think it's just good practice, to be safe. All of the other points look good. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
@Adamstom.97:  Done Let me know if there's anything else! Thanks again for taking the time to do this review. Bennv3771 (talk) 10:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
No, that all looks good to me. I am going to pass  this review. Congratulations! This article is very good, and definitely meets all the criteria. Good work on making all those changes so quickly as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I reverted a bunch of recent edits that removed significant LGBT content from the article.  I also provided a new reference to address the editor's reasons for removal. Web Warlock (talk) 23:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

The editor's reasoning rings more hollow since many sections that had been previously removed were referenced and sited. Web Warlock (talk) 23:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)