Talk:Midnight Club: Los Angeles/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Teancum (talk · contribs) 15:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Criteria
[edit]- Is it reasonably well written?
- There are issues with MOS:NUMBERS and WP:YOU.
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
References are not formatted properly. Access dates, authors, and date of publication should be present where possible.
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- There are very large portions of the prose that are unreferenced, and 20 references seems rather small for the size of the article. Additionally very few of the review scores are referenced.
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- While the reviews all give very high marks, no mention is made of any criticism
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Rationale for the gameplay image could be drastically improved. Additionally this seems to be more of a promotional screenshot and doesn't demonstrate gameplay.
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- The secondary box are is unnecessary per WP:NFCC and should be removed.
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Unfortunately due to the number of issues I have to quick-fail this article. I will say that the improvements made over the last while have made it a much better, more informative read, but it just hasn't hit GA-standards as of yet. Keep hope alive, though. There's been made great strides made here. --Teancum (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)