Talk:Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1988 video game)/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: S Masters (talk) 15:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments:

• There should not be anything in the lead not mentioned in the rest of the article. (GA criteria) - For example, I can't find any other mention of Road Runner or Klax (which are also unreferenced). Please see WP:LEAD.
• My only other concern is whether GameFAQs is a reliable source, especially when there are a number of items references using it. It appears to be a website that anyone can open an account and contribute. Can you help me verify that it is WP:RS?

The above are my only issues with this article. I will put in On Hold for up to seven days so that we can work to resolve these issues, and make this a better article.

Regarding #1, I have removed the uncited examples from both the lead and the body, so hopefully that has cleared up the problem... I don't see any more information that's in the lead but not the body, but please let me know if you catch anything. Regarding #2, according to Wikipedia:VG/RS#Situational sources, GameFAQs can be used to cite release data, which is the only thing that I have used the site for.

Thanks for the review, please let me know if there's anything else. Canadian Paul 21:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Summary: Thank you for your work and clarification. I am now satisfied that the article meets all the requirements for a Good Article, and I am happy to list it as such. Nice work! -- S Masters (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Canadian Paul 06:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)