Talk:Silent Hill: Homecoming/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- In the Plot, you might want to correctly link "penitentiary" to its correspondence article.
- Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- In the Plot, you might want to correctly link "penitentiary" to its correspondence article.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- Dates need to be unlinked, per here. In the Development section, it would be best if "Office of Film and Literature Classification" was followed by ---> (OFLC), I mean, I know what it means, but how 'bout your reader.
- Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Dates need to be unlinked, per here. In the Development section, it would be best if "Office of Film and Literature Classification" was followed by ---> (OFLC), I mean, I know what it means, but how 'bout your reader.
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Reference 2 is dead and link titles shouldn't be in all capitals, per here. References 4 and 5 are missing Publisher info.
- Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Reference 2 is dead and link titles shouldn't be in all capitals, per here. References 4 and 5 are missing Publisher info.
- B. 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):
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Not much to do. If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!
- Pass or Fail:
-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 18:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think I've covered everything. I replaced the dead, upper-cased reference with two from GameSpot for release date information (one for each platform), and I think I understood your meaning with regards to the OFLC (if you meant expanding out the acronym into the article text). You didn't mention which ref (other than 4) didn't have a publisher, but I think you might have meant reference 5, which I added a publisher to. If not, or there's anything else, let me know. SynergyBlades (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yup, that's exactly what I meant for the acronym, sorry if I didn't make sense. Also, that's my bad, I had a "typo" accident and forgot to mention it, again sorry about that. Anyways, thank you to SynergyBlades for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)