Talk:Midnight Entity

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Midnight Entity/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 22:07, 5 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Reviewer: 11WB (talk · contribs) 21:25, 8 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

• This is fine.

• 'The Midnight Entity is first appears in 2008's "Midnight".' - I think this is worded slightly incorrectly, 'first appears in' would work better here.
• 'Eventually, she becomes able to speak in unison with them.' - I would change 'becomes' with 'is' here.
• 'which will kill him.' - Potential MOS:TENSE error. Shouldn't this be 'which would kill him.'?
• The last few sentences of the paragraph speak in past tense, for example the word 'arrived'. However, later 'grabs' speaks in present tense. These occurrences may need correcting.

• 'with a creature with an incomprehensible language' - The repetition of 'with a' and 'with an' reads slightly weirdly here.
• 'the idea independently of it. - 'of it' is redundant here.

• 'a defining trait of the character used to get them out of scrapes' - Unsure of the word 'scrapes. here. I feel it may not be encyclopaedic.
• This section always refers to the character as 'The Entity', so much so that it feels like too much repetition. Some of these can probably be changed to 'its' or other alternates. For example, 'without removing the mystery behind the Entity.' > 'without removing its mystery.'

This is written in a very clear and understandable way. Above are some minor considerations. 11WB (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

This criterion is passed. 11WB (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

• Ref 4: Showcases the various monsters in the show. checkY
• Ref 10: Confirms the actor Paul Kasey. checkY
• Ref 11: Verifies the lack of a name given in the show. checkY
• Ref 11-15: These need a WP:REFGROUP. There is also a cite error on ref 13. All verifiable regardless. checkY
• Ref 17: This is fine. checkY
• Ref 20: No issues here. checkY

The references look fine to me, the one source marked unreliable (ref 9) is a primary source from the show itself, so there are no issues there. Just some minor formatting changes and this criterion can be passed! 11WB (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

This criterion is passed. 11WB (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

This article covers everything I would expect to read about. 11WB (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

This criterion is passed. 11WB (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The article attributes all opinions and quotes, with no text violating WP:NPOV. 11WB (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

This criterion is passed. 11WB (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The article is new and has a very short edit history. The talk page also has no history of disputes. 11WB (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

This criterion is passed. 11WB (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

There is an image of Lesley Sharp, however there is no image of the character of "The Entity" itself. This is of course down to its nature, however the article text mentions Paul Kasey playing a brief on-screen appearance in "The Well". Could an image of that be included? 11WB (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@11WB addressed all of the above. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:31, 8 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Would it be possible to move the new image to the infobox, as it's currently lacking much? 11WB (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@11WB given the Entity is typically formless, and this appearance is only viewed for less than a second as a shadow in the episode itself, I am not sure this would be an "iconic" visual representation of the creature that would justify an infobox placement. It feels more fit for the body, for me. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:12, 9 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

That is totally fair! The inclusion of the new image is good regardless of where it is placed! 11WB (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

This criterion is passed. 11WB (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Everything has been addressed and so am happy to pass this! 11WB (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

This article meets all the criteria and can be reassessed as a good article! 11WB (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]