Talk:Thief: The Dark Project/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- Prose and MoS compliance are sufficient.
- 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:
- 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 {{fact}} tag in the legacy section that needs addressing before the article can be passed.
- C. It contains no original research:
- Discounting the one {{fact}} tag mentioned above, references are fine, the article shows some impressive 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:
- The fair use rationale on File:Baffscrn1.jpg is flimsy, it doesn't convey the image's purpose well at all. Try redoing it using {{Non-free use rationale}} with a purpose more substantive than "used to show the game's distinctive graphical style"—what elements of the game does it convey and why are these elements important?
- 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:
- The article is good work, though I'm placing the review on hold pending resolution of the two minor issues listed above. -- Sabre (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
- I believe the two issues have been taken care of. I simply removed the fact-tagged sentence from Legacy, as after I examined it, it really wasn't relevant enough to be mentioned outside Deadly Shadows' own article. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Alrighty, that's all good. I'm passing the article. -- Sabre (talk) 09:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)