Talk:Orcs: First Blood/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) 17:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GAN Quicksheet 1.23 SM
(Criteria)

Starting comments:

I've been hovering around this one for a while, but have not committed to doing it until now because I knew it was going to be failed and I really don't like failing GANs.

1. Well written:

a. prose/copyright:

Needs work

- This article needs a thorough copyedit before it can be considered for GAN. The text is choppy, with individual points in single sentences forming their own paragraphs, a few awkward word choices, and far to many quotes for the amount of prose on the page. There are also some minor issues that a general cleanup would fix (for example, you don't need to specify that sources in English are in English.) I recommend that you take this to the requests page of the Guild of Copy Editors. While you're there, you should ask the copyeditor who takes the job for advice on where additional prose is needed. Certain sections, like the 'Reception' section, need additional synthesis (i.e. "critics praised XXX, YYY, and ZZZ, but found the book lacking in AAA and BBB").

b. MoS compliance:

2. Accurate and verifiable:

a. provides references:

Needs work

- As a general statement, if it's at all possible to avoid sources tied to the article you're covering, avoid those sources. stannicholls.com is used four times (additionally all the links go to the homepage, not the subpages specified in the sources).

b. proper citation use:

c. no original research:

3. Broad in coverage:

a. covers main aspects:

Needs work

- You should ask someone with more experience writing articles on literature for specifics, but this just dosen't feel complete. I pointed out the 'Reception' section above, but it feels light overall.

b. focused/on topic:

4. Neutral:

5. Stable:

6. Image use:

a. license/tagging correct:

Needs work

- I don't think that File:Orcs-stryke.jpg adds enough to the article to meet the non-free use criteria, specifically #8.

b. relevant/properly captioned:

7. Additional items not required for a GA, but requested by the reviewer:

a. images that should have alt texts have them:

b. general catch all and aesthetics:

Comments after the initial review:

I haven't marked anything off as done because I think that there's a good number of changes needed. Sorry if this seems harsh, but I felt it best to let you know everything now, rather than have you wait and wait and wait for a review. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOT PROMOTED 1a, 2a, 3a, and 6a concerns.