Talk:Uncharted 2: Among Thieves/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: –MuZemike 23:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Lead issues
The lead is too short for the article; it should contain about 3 full paragraphs for an article this size. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Organization has suggestions on how to organize the lead; you may also wish to look at other GAs and FAs to see how they are done.
- Verifiability issues
- Most of the "Gameplay" section is completely unsourced. For gameplay sections, most games have a manual (either paper, as in with the game, or online) and, for major video games like this, strategy guides. There is not much a reason not to source everything from the "Gameplay" section with those or other reliable sources.
- Parts of the "Development" as well as the "Post-release" and "Reception" sections are unsourced. There are also several {{Citation needed}} tags still lying around, which is not acceptable when an article comes to GA.
- Please look at CheckLinks again, as there are many sources which are now deadlinks. Those need to be rectified.
- Prose issues
The prose needs significant improvement across the board. There are choppy paragraphs all over the place, and there is some "puffery" in various places, including the "Reception" section.
- Conclusions
Failed - I'm sorry, but after reviewing this article, there are enough significant issues in the article in that merely placing on hold is not going to do any good, so I am going to fail this GA nomination.
There was a peer review done on this article back in January, which had some very good suggestions for improvement (in fact, many of them I also mentioned above). However, there were no signs of improvement as a result of that peer review. My suggestions are the following: go back to that peer review and go through each of those issues that are presented, as well as look at my issues I noted above and go through them. After improving the prose, request that someone look at the prose at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, which should go quite a ways toward making sure the prose is good. After that, you may also wish to request another peer review before you re-nominate so that everything is good to go.
Remember that GA is on its way to FA, and the basic stuff on articles needs to be done before bringing up to GA and, after that, to FA. –MuZemike 23:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)