Talk:Steins;Gate/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: PresN 20:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I am in the process of reviewing this article. --PresN 20:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
This article is in decent shape, but has a few minor issues before it can become a Good Article.
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- You should split the Gameplay section into multiple paragraphs
- 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:
- The gameplay and settings/themes sections do not have cites for the end of their sections
- 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):
- There's a few sources that I'm concerned about: what makes animate.tv (cite 36), My Community Journal (cite 37, Spong (cite 46), and ITmedia Gamez (cites 52,53) reliable sources? Not saying that they're not, but I find it hard to tell sometimes on Japanese sources.
- 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:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- 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:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Article placed on hold for the immediate moment. If the above issues can be dealt with, I will pass the article.
- Pass or Fail:
I see no more problems, so pass. --PresN 22:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Prose quality
[edit]Gameplay section has been split in half. --Remy Suen (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
References to sources
[edit]Claim of endings from the Gameplay section has been removed. Cause and effect comment has been attributed to the Famitsu review. Would it be acceptable to cite the butterfly effect comment to the game directly? The game has a "TIPS" section which includes a glossary of words that are used in the game. Or I could just remove it. --Remy Suen (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, that sounds fine. --PresN 22:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Butterfly effect sentence has been removed. --Remy Suen (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Citation of reliable sources where necessary
[edit]Claims sourced from animate.tv, My Community Journal, and Spong has been removed. I've replaced two of the radio show guests with citations from 4Gamer.net and the rest have been removed. Both 4Gamer.net and ITmedia are mentioned by WP:VG/RS. --Remy Suen (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)