Talk:Bullfrog Productions/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Darkwarriorblake (talk · contribs) 14:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
There are some small, easily fixable issues:

"At the time of the company's founding, Edgar and Molyneux were already involved in an enterprise called Taurus Impact Systems. Bullfrog was named after an ornament in Taurus' office.". This is unwieldy and the first sentence seems almost random until you read the follow up. I would change this to something like "Bullfrog's name was derived from an ornament in the offices of Edgar's and Molyneux's other enterprise".
The lead isn't as long as it should be for the amount of content. I would maybe mention after the opening sentence where they were headquartered, and maybe add a third paragraph in the middle to expand more on their history such as it being borne of a need to separate it out from the software side at Taurus. It just jumps from being founded to being acquired by EA to dead.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
If you ever want to take this to Featured Article it would be worth fully archiving sources where possible, as the older ones especially will disappear with time.

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
The only image has an appropriate copyright. I would look at adding images of important people if possible, there must be at least one of Molyneux, but it won't prevent it passing. Also maybe a screenshot of whatever you think is the best game to represent them to demonstrate the type of era/graphics/gameplay that was their bread and butter. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

@Darkwarriorblake: How's the article now? I have WP:NFCC concerns about having a screenshot of a game in this article, so that may not be possible. There may also be some bits and bobs from some French magazines I may want to put in, I need to check. Adam9007 (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC is allowed if you can justify it, I think you could justify a single image in this case, probably one from the games' respective articles, but it won't prevent it from becoming a GA here. I've ce'd the lede a little and replaced the Molyneux image with one facing into the article, but beyond that at the GA stage I have no further concerns. It's comprehensive, well sourced, and well organised. Congratulations.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]