Talk:Kud Wafter/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: All of the statements and paragraphs are detailed and carefully written in a neutral fashion, consisting of no original research either. The characters subject are well presented, with a citation provided for each character. The concerns I have is the first reference, in terms of its reliability and accuracy. I clicked on all the links in that first reference and they are all internal links (in other words Wikipedia references). The "Key" link is inaccurate, as it links to the whole page and not a specific section. I'm also not sure if Twitter accounts count as reliable sources either, as shown in the "Development and release" section. Overall, it's almost there, although I would like a second reviewer to check whether the citation concerns I have mentioned are a further cause of concern. Minima c (talk) 07:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first cite is a cite for the video game itself with {{cite video game}}, since a specific third-party cite detailing the gameplay could not be found. The Twitter issue has come up before in WP:RS, where it's generally cited as a self-published source, which says that they can be used in certain cases. Considering this was a tweet from the president of the publisher, I thought it would be reliable enough for inclusion.--十八 08:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion. For citing the game in terms of the gameplay itself, I've seen it done on other GAs, and it seems to be fine; it's not actually citing Wikipedia. For the twitter note, I'd feel more comfortable if it was a verified account, though twitter is quite selective on marking those, so not having one doesn't mean it's not the president. The sentence says it's being announced via twitter, so having that as a ref, in this particular instance at least, makes sense. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think it has fully met the GA standard --minhhuy*= (talk) 06:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look over this article for any issues, since it seems like the review's been abandoned. If I find nothing I'll pass it. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No further issues, so this passes as a GA. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]