Talk:Gears of War 2/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

{{subst:#if:Okay, I said I would do this, so here I am.|


Okay, I said I would do this, so here I am.|}}

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    {{subst:#if:For the most part, it's good. I had to fix a few minor things.|For the most part, it's good. I had to fix a few minor things.|}}
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{1bcom}}}|}}
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{2acom}}}|}}
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    {{subst:#if:Good for the most part, but there is only one citation in the "graphics" section, and the first part of the "gameplay" section needs a few more. Try using some of the reviews, as those always discuss the gameplay.
In the gameplay section, every statement has a references to support. It's just that the comments and the refs and sometimes spread far apart. As for the Graphics section, ref 33 applied to both paragraphs.--(NGG) 03:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)|Good for the most part, but there is only one citation in the "graphics" section, and the first part of the "gameplay" section needs a few more. Try using some of the reviews, as those always discuss the gameplay.
In the gameplay section, every statement has a references to support. It's just that the comments and the refs and sometimes spread far apart. As for the Graphics section, ref 33 applied to both paragraphs.--(NGG) 03:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)|}}
  1. C. It contains no original research:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{2ccom}}}|}}
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
    {{subst:#if:|{{{2dcom}}}|}}
  2. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{3acom}}}|}}
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    {{subst:#if:|{{{3bcom}}}|}}
  3. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{4com}}}|}}
  4. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{5com}}}|}}
  5. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{6acom}}}|}}
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{6bcom}}}|}}
  6. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    {{subst:#if:I'm putting this on hold so you can add more references where needed. I'll give you a week or so. I think it's something you can do; if you can, I'll pass it.|I'm putting this on hold so you can add more references where needed. I'll give you a week or so. I think it's something you can do; if you can, I'll pass it.|}}