@ Wells.grace & Ss112- Ok, I've taken a look at this article and in general it doesn't look bad. I do agree that the tone at times appears adulatory in some spots. I have amended the advert tag to fan pov which I think is a more accurate description of the issue. I left the MOS tag in place, as it is a good general alert indicating there are some issues that could use work. However, I removed the other two as they appeared to be superfluous. We don't want to tag bomb articles. All of which said, the lead may indeed need some trimming and the article as a whole could use a little copy-editing. Additionally we need to work on referencing as there are claims of fact that are not cited to reliable sources. No need to add another tag as I am mentioning it here. My usual rule of thumb is that any paragraph that contains any claim of fact that is not obviously uncontroversial should have at least one reference to a reliable source. We have entire sections that are unreferenced, so that definitely needs to be tightened up. Finally please remember that none of this is a criticism or personal attack. We are all on the same team here just trying to build a great encyclopedia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
