Talk:Cap

PAIRreview for Cap by Hello, I'm Time Turner.
Accuracy	3.0	For what information it has, it's correct information.
Depth	2.5	With an article on something as ambiguous as a cap, you'd expect something more... larger. I mean, it says that many characters wear caps, and yet it doesn't even give us a list of all these cap-wearers.
Grammar	2.0	Grammatical errors are piled throughout the article.
Images	2.5	Again, for what information the article has, there's enough images to go with the article. I only wish that an image of Goombario's hat itself was used and a gallery of caps was here.
Formatting	2.5	I don't have much to work with. There are little images, so I can't do much here.
Final Rating:	12.5	Let's see... needs more images, more expanding, less gramatical errors, and some more finishing touches.
Reviewer:	Hello, I'm Time Turner. doc

Who asked for this to be PAIRreveiwed? It's way too short for it to become a Featured Article anyway. EDIT: Reversinator, the only articles that need PAIRreviews are the ones that have Template:PAIRrequest on them. ^_^;; --Garlic Man (talk)

But the think is, nobody ever asks for PAIRreviews anymore, so I'm just making PAIRreviews for random articles just for fun. Besides, Knife and Cobold both gave me the A-OK for making PAIRreviews, and I'm sure they expected nobody using PAIRrequest. Hello, I'm Time Turner.

They gave you the A-OK for making PAIRreviews, or the A-OK for making PAIRreviews on random articles? --Garlic Man (talk)

Just to make PAIRreviews, but like I said, Garlicagus, I'm sure they expected nobody using PAIRrequest.
— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reversinator (talk).

I just didn't see the use in making PAIRreviews for articles that are too short to ever become FAs in the first place, but do what you must I guess. Garlic Man (talk)