- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- Pass or Fail:
- The lead is somewhat short for an article of this size. The article itself is comprehensive and in detail but the lead doesn't seem to summarise it all. The second paragraph of the lead could be expanded to detail more about its Development (which is very extensive). You could mention the addition of Spartan Ops and motion cinematic? In progress Working on that now...--BarsofGold (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- For the interest of comparison look at Halo 3's lead - the Halo 4 article is longer in length and yet its lead is shorter and less descriptive.
- There is a citations needed tag in the lead; this should either be removed or referenced! Done Citation tags removed.--BarsofGold (talk) 09:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- The first paragraph of the lead is somewhat choppy - it doesn't fully describe the details of the plot smoothly like Halo 3 did.
The entire Gameplay section is good, can't see any problems here so this meets the GA criteria.
- Four years after the events of Halo 3, Forward Unto Dawn" how about Four years after the events of Halo 3, the UNSC ship Forward Unto Dawn or something similar? Done I followed your advice.--BarsofGold (talk) 09:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- The rest of the synopsis section is informative and well comprehensive.
Just wondering, do the tables need to be collapsed here? It's almost like they're hidden! Done I have removed the collapsing bit so the tables are no longer hidden.--BarsofGold (talk) 09:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- Why is "Infinity Armor Pack" in italics and "Bullseye Pack" isn't?
- Ref 147 is broken
- Ref 200 is dead
- Refs 221, 220, 235 and 233 are also broken see tool
- Refs 234, 236, 239 and 219 are also dead! see tool
- These references need to be either removed or replaced before this meets the GA criteria. In progress I am removing all the faulty refs and I will replace them when my computer returns.--BarsofGold (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The article's prose is in good standing, there were very little copyediting issues and all the citations are in their correct places. However the only problems that stand in the way of Halo 4 becoming GA is the lead section and some of the broken references. I've listed all of them above and if all of those issues I have mentioned can be addressed then this article will have no problem passing the GAN. Personally I'd love to see this get its well deserved GA status, so I'll put this on hold for the standard seven days and once those issues can be addressed I'll have another look at it. Thank you! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 12:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Ok thank you. Sorry for the late reply I have been extremely busy lately. I will begin fixing the issues in a few hours time,--BarsofGold (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- Ok I'm back now and I'll start working on it.--BarsofGold (talk) 09:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Close - not promoted
Only for the time being, I know that you're busy and for the sake of this review I'll close this for the mean time. There are still some pressing concerns with the lead and the broken references which require some time to fix. BarsofGold, if you'd like, when you're ready you can let me know once those issues are addressed and I can speedily review this again! It shouldn't take long next time as we would both love this to get to GA. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 19:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)