Jump to content

Talk:Batman: The Dark Knight (video game)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 18:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


All of my comments are open for discussion. Once complete, I'll claim this review for points in the 2018 wikicup. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    These are my copyedits. Feel free to revert, revise, or discuss any of them.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    no concern
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    no concern
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    no concern
    C. It contains no original research:
    no concern
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    no concern
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    "The direction ... changed when Pandemic learned that the game had to be based on the film" - Is there more detail available on this? It seems to contradict earlier statements. What did Pandemic think they were making, a generic Batman game? A "loosely inspired" one? If nothing more is available, I recommend removing this sentence. It isn't vital to the paragraph, and as-is it's more teasing than informative.
    I've removed it. The Unseen64 video says it happened after they got concept art of the Joker but doesn't say if that's what made it change. JOEBRO64 11:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Works for me. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    no concern
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    no concern
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    no concern
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    n/a
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    n/a
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    One request for additional information under 3A. Otherwise everything looks great. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Responded above. Thanks for reviewing. JOEBRO64 11:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Argento Surfer: whoops, forgot to ping. JOEBRO64 11:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good to me. Happy to promote this one. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]