Talk:Islanders (video game)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gatoclass (talk · contribs) 04:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   I may not wrap up this review today, but I thought I'd just start by saying that I think this is a very well written and organized article, to the point that I've been unable to find a single issue with the text thus far—which is far from my usual experience in doing reviews. So, well done on that!

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with 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:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Well I'm really unable to fault this article. It's very well presented, with all the information presented logically. The gameplay description is crystal clear, and the choice of quotes in the "Reception" section is good and well ordered. The development section is also well put together. Basically, it's enjoyable and easy to read and comprehend, which pretty much hits all the bases. No point in spending any more time on this, it's a straightforward pass in my book. Gatoclass (talk) 06:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

   Gatoclass, thanks for your review! I'm glad you found the article enjoyable :) I had a fun time writing it (nearly as much as I had playing the game) so I'm pleased that you found it well-written. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)