Talk:Thief II/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TheQ Editor (talk · contribs) 20:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I am a Good Article reviewer recruitee and this is the first article I reviewed. I know the Good Article criteria though. But I am sorry if I had gotten something wrong in the review. For example, I saw a lot of [ ] with text in the middle, and that was one of the things I think it should be fixed. But maybe it's supposed to be there, just explain it to me and I'll change it in the review.

If you have any problems, or if you fixed all the areas I pointed out, please leave a message on my talk page.RegardsTheQ Editor (Talk) 20:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

GA review table

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.	Fixed now
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Fixed
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.	The article is verifiable
	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).	It provides in-line citations with correct syntax
	2c. it contains no original research.	No original research, all work can be verified
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Covers the main aspects of the topic
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Stays on topic.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article stays NPOV throughout the article
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit conflicts from day. Stable
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.	Valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images have captions
	7. Overall assessment.	Awesome!

Specific problems with "Well Written"

• Would be better if there's a See Also section

• Done.

• Word "prophesized" misspelled. No "z"

• Done.

• Word "moreso". Not a word

• Done.

• Word "Mages" not supposed to be proper.

• The word appears in a quote. I can't change it. I could add a {{sic}}, if you like.

• Phrase "the The New York Times" looks weird. Perhaps putting The New York Times in quotations?

• That was actually a typo. Fixed.

• Word "sequel-itis". I don't understand.

• As with the other one, this appears inside a quote. I can't change it. "Sequel-itis" (more commonly rendered "sequelitis") is an informal term used to describe the loss of freshness, innovation and inspiration in a video game sequel.

• The article has lots of [text] such as [and], accept[ing], [their], [us], [we], [... and], [...] and [were]

• Yes, it does. It's used to cut down quotes to a manageable size. As far as I know, it doesn't violate any MOS guidelines. I've never seen any objections to it at FAC.

• Fix wikilink disambugiation page of Ken Levine. Please specify which one.

• Done.
• Thanks for the review. See my comments above. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

@JimmyBlackwing: Please add the caption to the infobox image. You can do this by adding |caption = under the image. TheQ Editor (Talk) 22:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)