Talk:Flight Unlimited/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Creating review page. Prime Blue (talk) 12:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose: (1) The shocking thing first: a quick look over "Development" had me count some 50 direct quotes. Most of those will need to be reworked into regular prose or indirect quotes – so that'd be something to work on while I review the rest of the article. (2) Not too sure that "hoops" is enough of a standard English noun to be readily understandable. If I hadn't played Pilotwings 64, I don't think I would have known what you meant. Maybe something like "flying rings" would work better in the lead, and as an additional clarification in "Gameplay"? MoS: "Navier-Stokes equations" needs an en dash (–) instead of a hyphen (-). Would also remove this from the lead, because it is not apparent to readers what it means just yet. The external link to the downloads is dead.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Both the live web and archived versions of this source are blank white pages for me.

   I don't know why; they work fine for me. Not sure how I could fix them. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 14:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

   Article uses reliable sources and contains no original research.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   All major topics of WP:VG/GL covered without going into unnecessary detail.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No personal analyses or opinions in the article.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Okay, I definitely won't put all the FA-esque prose problems and suggestions here, because the list is seriously growing, and all those comments are far too nit-picky for a regular GA review. Not to mention that it would be confusing to review the article with all the changes. We'll have a separate peer review on that after I'm done with the GA review. Prime Blue (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)