Really even with those points, the one thing holding it back is how it's written. In addition the results of the poll are user based and unreliable.

If they were to, say, list 'pokemon' as an option, would that validate it as reception for every species article? No. It needs to be more specific: why does it matter that he was on this poll in their opinion.

Reference 12 is given undue weight: as broad a blanket term as to why such a character was chosen cannot and should not be used as qualifying reception.

Many such mods exist across the board, how was Dogmeat's significant?

The fan-made mod reference doesn't add a whole lot by itself.

Reference 9 can be rewritten to cover that it's discussing Dogmeat as an example of a non-human party member and the significance of it without namedropping an unrelated character or game (checked the exact excerpt myself on Google, this is feasible).

While I get the intended impact of the image, it's meaningless to someone unfamiliar with the game and doesn't give a good idea of Dogmeat's appearance, which is what the infobox image is intended for.

I really feel a better picture can be used for the article.

Reading the sentences aloud may help with that, as it'll give you an indication if things can be improved upon, or cases in which grammar is incorrect (for example, the first sentence of the reception area).

The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.Īlright I'm going to spare you the breakdown and get right to the point: the prose is a mess and direly needs a copyedit. This review is transcluded from Talk:Dogmeat/GA1.

Where is dogmeat fallout 3