GA Review [ edit ]
Article ( edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( edit | history) · Watch
Well written: N
(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
N (b) it complies with the
manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
with Verifiable no original research:
(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline; (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; and (c) it contains
no original research.
Broad in its coverage: N
(a) it addresses the
main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays
focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). N
: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Neutral
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Illustrated, if possible, by
: images N
(a) images are
tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and N (b) images are
relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. N
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
Reviewer: Teancum ( talk) 21:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
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.
. Please familiarise yourself with the review process before thinking about undertaking any more reviews. Jezhotwells ( talk) 01:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)