Talk:Club Penguin/GA2

GA Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
The section about Child safety seems more like an advertisment even though all of them have proper citations. From that section:
The system uses a number of different approaches in order to maintain a high level of security. The key approaches include:
To me, "high level" is POV. Fixed
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Semi-protection is for ip vandalism
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
~~On hold until criterion #4 is fixed.~~ Passed, as #4 has been fixed.

Thanks for that. I've reworded the child safety section so that it isn't a POV as it was - you were definitely correct about the wording. :) I considered moving some of the criticism into Child safety, (to join the "Orwellian dystopia" reference which was already there), but I thought that it may be better left in the "Reception and criticism" section. I'm happy to move it in there if you think it will provide more balance, though. - Bilby (talk) 03:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! It's much appreciated. :) - Bilby (talk) 01:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Thanks!--Vinni3 (talk) 06:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]