| Revision as of 14:09, 30 May 2009 editDavid Fuchs (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators44,916 edits list | Revision as of 14:41, 30 May 2009 edit undo1ForTheMoney (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers40,680 editsm →GA Review: Very well...Next edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| *Images: There are ''waaaay'' too many fair use images in the article, and very few actually meet ]. They need to be trimmed and the remainder's rationales expanded. | *Images: There are ''waaaay'' too many fair use images in the article, and very few actually meet ]. They need to be trimmed and the remainder's rationales expanded. | ||
| *Coverage: Mostly good, but there are problems in how content is represented; for example, take a look at ] game articles and see how they do the reception sections, then contrast it to the current reception section which gives undue weight and sometimes uses ]. --<font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 14:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC) | *Coverage: Mostly good, but there are problems in how content is represented; for example, take a look at ] game articles and see how they do the reception sections, then contrast it to the current reception section which gives undue weight and sometimes uses ]. --<font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 14:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :I just knew we needed more editors at that peer review. ] (]) 14:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:41, 30 May 2009
GA Review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
On reviewing this article against the good article criteria, I have decided that the article in its current form does not meet requirements and that there is sufficient work that could not be done in the span of a week. The major issues:
- References: Clearly tagged unreliable references are in the article. That's an automatic quickfail right there.
- Prose: The prose is very choppy, to the point where it can be hard to read. Get an experienced copyeditor to run through it.
- Images: There are waaaay too many fair use images in the article, and very few actually meet WP:NFCC. They need to be trimmed and the remainder's rationales expanded.
- Coverage: Mostly good, but there are problems in how content is represented; for example, take a look at WP:FA game articles and see how they do the reception sections, then contrast it to the current reception section which gives undue weight and sometimes uses weasel words. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 14:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- I just knew we needed more editors at that peer review. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 14:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)