Talk:Warcraft: Orcs & Humans/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

  1. Well written:Red XN
    (a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; andRed XN
    (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.Green tickY
  2. Verifiable with no original research:Green tickY
    (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;Green tickY
    (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; andGreen tickY
    (c) it contains no original research.Green tickY
  3. Broad in its coverage:Red XN
    (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; andGreen tickY
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).Red XN
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.Green tickY
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.Green tickY
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:Red XN
    (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; andRed XN
    (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.Red XN
  • The prose definitely needs work. There's no need for subsections if they are no more than five lines each, it clutters the article
  • Warcraft Orcs v Humans 01.png needs a much better Fair use rationale, is overly large (the standard is 200px) and needs a much shorter caption
  • The Reception section needs major cleanup. Consider combining everything into around five paragraphs.
  • There is far too much detail for things like spells and things, and it unfortunately borders WP:GAMECRUFT

Reviewer: Teancum (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

  1. Why was this failed with no hold at all. It is customary to hold for seven days. Your points could easily have been answered / addressed in that time. This looks like a very shoddy review to me - you didn't bother to put an under review tag on the GAn page acording to this diff.[1]. Please familiarise yourself with the review process before thinking about undertaking any more reviews. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)