Talk:Sonic and the Secret Rings/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I will be reviewing this article. Going to read through now and add queries here as I go. If required I'll massage the prose myself, but feel free to revert those changes should I accidentally change the intention of the sentence. Miyagawa (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Passes all quick fail criteria, will being review proper now. Miyagawa (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Might be worth adding a line to the lead regarding the addition of role playing elements and skills to the Sonic series.
Done Tezero (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- In development, the quote needs a reference directly after it.
- Done Tezero (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Date format in the references needs to be the same for all references. The magazine references use a different format to the other references.
- Template "cite journal" is used for magazines, and "cite web" for websites. But if you mean the information given in each citation, I just use whatever is available/needed. For example, magazine references, because they are static, do not need accessdates. Also, the three Nintendo Power references in a row do not have authors because the pages cited contain simple lists of the best-selling games at the time. Tezero (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- You're quite right, just checked and I was misreading the page number as the date. Miyagawa (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Template "cite journal" is used for magazines, and "cite web" for websites. But if you mean the information given in each citation, I just use whatever is available/needed. For example, magazine references, because they are static, do not need accessdates. Also, the three Nintendo Power references in a row do not have authors because the pages cited contain simple lists of the best-selling games at the time. Tezero (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
These are the only points I can see that stop this article from passing all the relevant GA criteria. Miyagawa (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Overall, a good article and an interesting read. Miyagawa (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
