Talk:XXX (video game)/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Cukie Gherkin (talk · contribs) 00:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
- 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):
- a. (reference section):
- 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/fail:
- Pass/fail:
(Criteria marked are unassessed)
- Reception could be summarized a bit more; for instance, "...remarked on Samuel L. Jackson's character that "I've seen guys at McDonalds that bear better resemblance than the likeness the artists created for this game"" could be "...felt that Samuel L. Jackson's character in this game looked nothing like the actor." or something to that effect.
- I cleaned up some redirects and added a caption.
Ultimately I think that the paraphrasing "issue" is not much of an issue, just something I'd recommend fixing. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 12:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)