Talk:Mega Man Battle Network (video game)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Czarkoff (talk · contribs) 15:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Status
[edit]This section is supposed to be edited only by reviewer(s).
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
| |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
| |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. |
| |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. |
More to follow.
Discussion
[edit]Please place your questions, comments and progress reports here. It seems my comment 1b2 was somehow misleading. The idea was that the "author", "first", "last", "developer" and similar fields per WP:CS1 § Work and publisher should not be filled if they duplicate the "publisher". Even more uncomfortable I feel about the fact that I wasn't supposed to require this (not checked per WP:GACR). Thus I dismiss this issue.
The article looks good to me now, but I would like to give it a fresh look tomorrow. Hope I'll be able to pass it right away.