Talk:Flight Unlimited II/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) 02:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

GAN Quicksheet 1.24 SM
(Criteria)

Starting comments: I've read over the article once, and can see this passing easily. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

1. Well written:

a. prose/copyright: Needs work

• Please mention the game engine in the lead. I've only become aware of it recently myself, but apparently that's something that's desired.

• Took steps to address this.

b. MoS compliance: Acceptable

2. Accurate and verifiable: Section acceptable

a. provides references: Acceptable

• I am, of course, assuming good faith towards the sources that are not accessible online.

b. proper citation use: Acceptable

• In the future, please provide links for press releases. Even if they're not at their original locations, they are generally archived. Any source that you can access online, even if that's not how you actually accessed it, should still be given a link, as that fits with our philosophy on verifiability.

c. no original research: Acceptable

3. Broad in coverage:

a. covers main aspects: Needs work

• I would like for you to work the aggregate score in, as that seems to be a standard for video game articles. There isn't one at Metacritic, but there is one at GameRankings. It should be addressed both in the prose and in the side table.

• I purposefully left this out, as GameRankings scores for pre-2000s games tend to be extremely limited. In this case, the aggregate score is based on only four reviews. If you still think it's relevant, I'll include it.

b. focused/on topic: Acceptable

4. Neutral: Section acceptable

5. Stable: Section acceptable

6. Image use: Section acceptable

a. license/tagging correct: Acceptable

b. relevant/properly captioned: Acceptable

• I am not sure that the image of the plane in flight is terribly useful, as it's not particularly informative as far as screenshots go. That being said, I'm not into games in this genre, so I wouldn't have any suggestions for a replacement. For the moment, I suppose it might as well stay in.

• Replaced.

7. Additional items not required for a GA, but requested by the reviewer:

a. images that should have alt texts have them: Needs work

• Please? I won't fail this if you fix everything else and leave this, but it is still something that I like to see (and it is mandatory when you get to FAC level).

• Done.

b. general catch all and aesthetics: Acceptable

Comments after the initial review: Solid. Needs changes in 1a and 3a, should have changes in 7a, and might need changes per 2b, but this should get promoted easily enough. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

See what you think. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. I understand your point regarding GR. PROMOTED! Remember that newly promoted GAs now qualify for DYK. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)