Talk:Need for Speed: ProStreet/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Berrely (talk · contribs) 14:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Article maintains good grammar, it has a good sentence structure, doesn't seem to be any errors.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   The lead is nicely written, providing a good overview. The article layout follows standard and sections aren't too long. All attributions are sourced.

2. 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:

   Well formatted list of references

   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:

   I've looked at the sources and I can't find a single unreliable one. Most sources used are marked as reliable in WP:RSP. After running the article through some automated tools, it came up with no dead links.

   C. It contains no original research:

   I've looked at all claims and statements in the article, and they are all backed up by sources. I can't find any OR here.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig comes up with no copyright violations

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   The article addresses all main aspects of the subject.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Important aspects are covered well, and no undue weight or unnecesary detail is given on subjects that do not need it.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   The article maintains a NPOV throughtout it.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   I've got a nice little script that does this for me, but I also took a look at the history just in case. The article is very stable and there has not been any rewversions for the past 3 months.

6. 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:

   All media is non-free, and valid fair-use rationales have been given for them. Free media cannot be used as the game is coprighted.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Congratulations! This was a very well written article.

@Berrely: Thanks for your review, really appreciated. --Niwi3 (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)