Talk:Dolphin (emulator)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jd22292 (talk · contribs) 16:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
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:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- I notice a lot of words that should be avoided per the Words to Watch guideline. Perhaps looking into them will help.
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- 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:
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- The one violation I found through Copyvios is a backwards copy via Wikia.
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- 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):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- 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:
- 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:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- The only issue I have is the use of certain words which should be avoided per WP:W2W. I will place this review on hold until the issues are addressed. If nothing is done in this time, I will fail the review. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 16:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
- I have started skimming through the WtW page and seeing what words I can find- do you perhaps have at least a few specific examples that you happened to catch?? (I am not the nominator, by the way, I'm just here to help out.) TheDisneyGamer (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- @TheDisneyGamer: The only few I have found in particular were puffery words such as "great" and "leading" (not sure if they're used in a way that's not described in W2W), an expression of doubt in the use of "so-called", and finally the use of "notably" is not of impartial tone, as described in W2W's Editorializing section. Perhaps I might be looking at this MoS wrong, but I'll leave it up to the editors to decide. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 17:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, I think I might've removed most of the W2W-y things?? I couldn't find "so-called" anywhere, though I might've missed it (or I removed it and don't remember doing so), but I got rid of some that I found how does such as "critically acclaimed". How does it look?? TheDisneyGamer (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- This is also for KAMiKAZOW, who made this edit, but in the section about Ishiiruka, I notice the use of "unique," another peacock word. "So-called" is still present in the phrase
"The solution that the so-called Ubershaders..."
. A quick Ctrl+F can help with that. See WP:EDITORIAL about the use of "notably" in the lead where it says"most notably the ability to play games with..."
. That's all I can see for now. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 17:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)- Thanks for fixing my errors. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 13:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- Not a problem. I can now say that the Words to Watch issue has been addressed and the article is now good article status. Congratulations! jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 17:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing my errors. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 13:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- This is also for KAMiKAZOW, who made this edit, but in the section about Ishiiruka, I notice the use of "unique," another peacock word. "So-called" is still present in the phrase
- Ok, I think I might've removed most of the W2W-y things?? I couldn't find "so-called" anywhere, though I might've missed it (or I removed it and don't remember doing so), but I got rid of some that I found how does such as "critically acclaimed". How does it look?? TheDisneyGamer (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- @TheDisneyGamer: The only few I have found in particular were puffery words such as "great" and "leading" (not sure if they're used in a way that's not described in W2W), an expression of doubt in the use of "so-called", and finally the use of "notably" is not of impartial tone, as described in W2W's Editorializing section. Perhaps I might be looking at this MoS wrong, but I'll leave it up to the editors to decide. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 17:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)