Talk:Flight Unlimited

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Flight Unlimited is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic star Flight Unlimited is part of the Looking Glass Studios video games series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
WikiProject Video games (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reference material[edit]

I have found the following material related to this article:


Previews and other material[edit]

I'll add more here as I find it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Flight Unlimited/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Creating review page. Prime Blue (talk) 12:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Prose: (1) The shocking thing first: a quick look over "Development" had me count some 50 direct quotes. Most of those will need to be reworked into regular prose or indirect quotes – so that'd be something to work on while I review the rest of the article. (2) Not too sure that "hoops" is enough of a standard English noun to be readily understandable. If I hadn't played Pilotwings 64, I don't think I would have known what you meant. Maybe something like "flying rings" would work better in the lead, and as an additional clarification in "Gameplay"? MoS: "Navier-Stokes equations" needs an en dash (–) instead of a hyphen (-). Would also remove this from the lead, because it is not apparent to readers what it means just yet. The external link to the downloads is dead.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Both the live web and archived versions of this source are blank white pages for me.
    I don't know why; they work fine for me. Not sure how I could fix them. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 14:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
    Article uses reliable sources and contains no original research.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    All major topics of WP:VG/GL covered without going into unnecessary detail.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    No personal analyses or opinions in the article.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:

Okay, I definitely won't put all the FA-esque prose problems and suggestions here, because the list is seriously growing, and all those comments are far too nit-picky for a regular GA review. Not to mention that it would be confusing to review the article with all the changes. We'll have a separate peer review on that after I'm done with the GA review. Prime Blue (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)