Talk:Mario Kart DS/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:Let's-a go:|


Let's-a go:|}}

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{1acom}}}|}}
    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:I know everything written there is true, but since many game reviews talk about the gameplay and plot of the game reviewed, it would be a good idea to have some citations to the game's reviews in the "Gameplay" section.|I know everything written there is true, but since many game reviews talk about the gameplay and plot of the game reviewed, it would be a good idea to have some citations to the game's reviews in the "Gameplay" section.|}}
    C. It contains no original research:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{2ccom}}}|}}
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
    {{subst:#if:|{{{2dcom}}}|}}
  3. 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}}}|}}
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    {{subst:#if:I was a bit hesitant to say yes on this, but the game really did get very good reviews.|I was a bit hesitant to say yes on this, but the game really did get very good reviews.|}}
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    {{subst:#if:A little bit farther back there was, but it was all vandalism, and there doesn't seem to be any now.|A little bit farther back there was, but it was all vandalism, and there doesn't seem to be any now.|}}
  6. 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}}}|}}
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    {{subst:#if:Good job, GaryKing. Tezkag72私にどなる私のはかい 14:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)|Good job, GaryKing. Tezkag72私にどなる私のはかい 14:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)|}}


Thanks! I hope I made your job easy. Gary King (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)