Talk:Zarya (Overwatch)/GA2

GA Review

Passed. 123Writer ^talk 17:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: 1TWO3Writer (talk · contribs) 21:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Part of August 2023 backlog. Will do after BellTel Lofts.

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.	Did some minor c/e. I added an explanation needed tag to lingo non-Overwatch players need explaining, perhaps using a {{refn}}. Reread the article like you are your great-grandpa or grandma to find terms that need clarification.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Fixed some terms to make it sound more formal.
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.	Fixed cs1 maint issue. Also used {{Unbulleted list citebundle}} per WP:CITEBUNDLE. Other than that, no issues.
	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).	Spot check issues addressed. All good.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Every paragraph has a citation, with most having multiple.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Copyvio false positives are quotes.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Summary of creation, in-game info and real world impact.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Game lore section not too detailed, most of article is correctly focused on real world impact.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Includes both positive and negative reception.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Last edit not mine weeks ago.
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.	2 non-free images, shrunken and tagged as per policy, fair use.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Captions describe the image accurately with the weapon having a citation.
	7. Overall assessment.

Spot-check

1, 3, 13, 19, 24, 28, 32, 34

[28] probably a nitpick but is there any secondary sources announcing the figurine's release?

Discussion

@1TWO3Writer: reworded that text to hopefully be a bit clearer, replaced reference 28 with an article from Hardcore Gamer discussing the figures to boot.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely better, good job! 123Writer ^talk 17:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.