Talk:Broken Sword: The Sleeping Dragon/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Allens (talk · contribs) 00:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Hrm. Unfortunately, I would have had to flunk the article on criterion 1a, except that I went through and cleaned up the grammar, etc. I'll have to check on whether copyediting is sufficient involvement to disqualify myself from being the reviewer - I'm consulting with one of the GA reviewer mentors (Arsenikk) right now. Allens (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Alright, looks like I'm OK. Arsenikk did point out a couple problems, namely:
- A lack of accessdates in citations
- Lack of a screenshot (not required but greatly preferable); a single screenshot falls within fair use, although more than one may not
- I'll continue to go over it and other stuff (copyediting its sequel plus the Parliament of Croatia article). Allens (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Still looking at the rest (anything not down as good) - just wanted to put down these to keep track
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- References checked (BTW, you seem to be a bit mixed up between "accessdate" and "date" - the former is the date at which someone last accessed the review/whatever, including in order to verify them, while the latter is the date the review/whatever was published, if available); sources appear reliable for the purpose; no OR found.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
"Setting and characters" could use some expansion - the setting appears to be modern-day but with secret superscience or magic, and should be commented on; a bit more detail should be present as to at least some of the other characters."Setting and characters" fixed, good job - I note these could be used as the basis for an expansion to the linked list of characters article. Does not appear overly detailed.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Covers major critiques, especially now.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No problems noted.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Checked 6a; good job on finding the developer images.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass!
- Pass/Fail:
Comments
[edit]- All accessdates are added - Done
- Screenshot added - Done
- I think I added enough to the "Setting and characters" section. :) --Khanassassin (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- I deleted "26/32 + 6 mixed, 0-)", because I think it's kind of unnecessary, and I never seen that added next to the MetaScore... --Khanassassin (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- OK. I thought that it had gotten 0 negative reviews was of interest, but I'm not experienced in the area of video game reviews... Allens (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)