Talk:Halo Wars 2/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Prinsgezinde (talk · contribs) 12:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
An impressively extensive article, props to nominator The1337gamer and everyone else who contributed.
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- E̶n̶t̶i̶r̶e̶ ̶"̶S̶t̶o̶r̶y̶"̶ ̶s̶u̶b̶s̶e̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶"̶P̶l̶o̶t̶"̶ ̶s̶e̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶u̶n̶s̶o̶u̶r̶c̶e̶d̶
- Article is well sourced and all the necessary inline citations to back up its claims.
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- Focuses exclusively on all aspects of the game without going too much into other games of the franchise or unnecessary details.
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Reception is well described, giving proportionate attention to positive and negative reactions
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No disputes, naturally.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Three images related to a copyrighted video game is a fairly good amount. The two that feature copyrighted material have sufficient fair use rationales.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Passed! A thoroughly well done job.
- Pass/Fail:
- @Prinsgezinde: Thanks for the review. I've corrected the grammar issues. Regarding the unsourced story section, video game plots follow the same conventions as film plots (WP:FILMPLOT), so they generally don't require references. E.g.: Halo: Reach and many other VG articles passed featured article review with entirely unsourced plot sections. Let me know if that's a satisfactory explanation. I could add citations and quotes of individual scenes in the game but it's rather tedious and so it's usually not worth it unless there is a dispute over the plot section. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Excellent! That was actually bugging me too.. I was unaware of said policy but completely support it, as plot material is so easily verifiable (and full of spoilers) that no non-wiki source would normally describe it. In that case there are no more issues. Well done. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)