Talk:Brain Challenge: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Deltagreen23 (talk | contribs) m reviewed article: result was failed GAN |
Deltagreen23 (talk | contribs) m →GAN Review: template reorg. |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
==GAN Review== |
==GAN Review== |
||
{{GAList2 |
|||
A good article has the following attributes: |
|||
|overcom= This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article. |
|||
|1a=y |
|||
# It is '''well written'''. ''No problems here.'' |
|||
|1b=y |
|||
# It is '''factually accurate''' and '''[[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiable]]'''. ''Addressed, meets standards.'' |
|||
|2a=y |
|||
# It is '''broad in its coverage'''. In this respect, it: |
|||
|2b=y |
|||
#:(a) addresses the major aspects of the topic;<ref>This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates|WP:FAC]]; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics.</ref> and |
|||
|2c=y |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
|3a=n |
|||
*''Article is also not necessarily "broad in coverage," requires more detail on some subjects.'' |
|||
| ⚫ | |3acom=One of the main flaws of the article. I read the article and understand it concerns "brain-training puzzles," yet there are no examples of what those puzzles are like. If I were someone who was unaware of the other, similar games (Brain Age, etc.), and unwilling to look into them, then this article would not be able to inform me of the core component of the gameplay. A few examples of some of the puzzles and how to play them would be a welcome addition. |
||
#:(b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see [[Wikipedia:Summary style|summary style]]). ''No problems.'' |
|||
|3b=n |
|||
# It is '''[[WP:NPOV|neutral]]'''; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. ''Good.'' |
|||
|3bcom=See above. |
|||
# It is '''stable'''; that is, it is not the subject of an ongoing [[Wikipedia:Edit war|edit war]] or content dispute. Vandalism reversion, ''proposals'' to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing) and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold. ''No issues here.'' |
|||
|4=y |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
|5=y |
|||
|6a=y |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
|6b=n |
|||
| ⚫ | |6bcom=Images are fully cited for fair use, but the gallery layout in which they are presented is an issue. It is clear that there are various versions of the game, but unless they differ so significantly as to be unrecognizable save in terms of the title, there is probably no need for this. Cut down the images to two or so and incorporate them into the rest of the article (unless you have a rationale for keeping them all which I am unaware of or cannot see for myself). |
||
|7=n |
|||
| ⚫ | |7com=Unfortunately, I cannot pass the article as is. The image issue did not factor significantly into this assessment, but is something that needs dealing with. The article itself is too vague and missing key details. It sounds like a generic description of any one of a dozen such puzzle games, and leaves much to be desired in terms of actual gameplay. The multiplayer section could also use some elaboration (what are the capabilities of the multiplayer? Is there only a limited selection of games that can be played there? Are there any significant differences between multiplayer and single player gameplay?). In any case, if these problems are addressed, the article should be able to successfully meet the criteria in a second GAN. I hope this has been able to help you in improving the article. [[User:Deltagreen23|Deltagreen23]] ([[User talk:Deltagreen23|talk]]) 20:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
}} |
|||
Revision as of 00:24, 24 March 2008
 | Brain Challenge was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (March 23, 2008). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
GAN Review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- One of the main flaws of the article. I read the article and understand it concerns "brain-training puzzles," yet there are no examples of what those puzzles are like. If I were someone who was unaware of the other, similar games (Brain Age, etc.), and unwilling to look into them, then this article would not be able to inform me of the core component of the gameplay. A few examples of some of the puzzles and how to play them would be a welcome addition.
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- See above.
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- Images are fully cited for fair use, but the gallery layout in which they are presented is an issue. It is clear that there are various versions of the game, but unless they differ so significantly as to be unrecognizable save in terms of the title, there is probably no need for this. Cut down the images to two or so and incorporate them into the rest of the article (unless you have a rationale for keeping them all which I am unaware of or cannot see for myself).
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Unfortunately, I cannot pass the article as is. The image issue did not factor significantly into this assessment, but is something that needs dealing with. The article itself is too vague and missing key details. It sounds like a generic description of any one of a dozen such puzzle games, and leaves much to be desired in terms of actual gameplay. The multiplayer section could also use some elaboration (what are the capabilities of the multiplayer? Is there only a limited selection of games that can be played there? Are there any significant differences between multiplayer and single player gameplay?). In any case, if these problems are addressed, the article should be able to successfully meet the criteria in a second GAN. I hope this has been able to help you in improving the article. Deltagreen23 (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
