Talk:Joe Danger/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hibana (talk · contribs) 15:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   There are a few links that need some disambiguation:

   Lead: Daredevil should dab to Stunt performer, Sony should pinpoint to Sony Computer Entertainment

    Done — Joseph Fox 16:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

   Gameplay: Sonic the Hedgehog, I'm guessing, should dab to Sonic the Hedgehog (video game)

    Done — Joseph Fox 03:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

   Development: Black should dab to Black (video game)

    Done — Joseph Fox 03:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

   There is some inconsistent styling among publications in the body and references. Several instances of sites like 1UP.com, Gamasutra, and Eurogamer don't need to be italicized.

    Done - What happened there is that the citeweb template automatically italicises the work= parameter for some reason, which ruined the coding. Now fixed. — Joseph Fox 03:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

   In ref 39, GameRankings should be under the publisher parameter of the cite web template instead of work parameter. The duplicate work parameter for Metacritic in ref 40 is not needed.

    Done — Joseph Fox 03:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

   Refs 35 and 50: per Wikipedia:Red link, only use red links if you intend to create said article or if it's likely someone else will. Otherwise, delink them.

    Done — Joseph Fox 03:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   What makes Blue's News (of ref 24) a reliable source?

   It is listed over at WP:VG/RS, with the reasoning that it belongs to UGO Networks who are owned by IGN Entertainment. — Joseph Fox 14:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

   Calculating the generated revenue is original research, as the sources only list the number of units sold. Simply stating that the game sold at least 109,169 units in both the lead and the reception section should be sufficient anyway.

   See WP:CALC for that. Should be fine. — Joseph Fox 14:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

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:

   Good work. ~ Hibana (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

   Thanks for the critique and for the review, very helpful :) — Joseph Fox 16:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)