Talk:OnLive/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

   Many short paragraphs, including several one sentence paragraphs. Sources 5, 16, 18, 19 are not in proper format. Tone is written in the form of an advertisement, including the Console, Corporate information, and Reaction sections.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   There's no direct correlation between the Playcast Media System and this item really demonstrated at all. Several sentences also seem to make use of weasel words.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Due to the fact this item has yet to be released, post-release reception, or in the case it isn't post-non-release reception, is missing. That is a vital piece of a fully comprehensive approach to a subject.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   As stated, article has the feel of an advertisement, not a comprehensive study of an item.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   All in all, this article is not even to C-class quality and is a skeleton of what it should be. You need to improve upon it heavily, and make the tone more in line with a neutral analysis of the item. As it stands this is nowhere near GA quality.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)