Talk:NHL 11/GA1

GA Review

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

GA Review

I'll be reviewing the article over the next few days. Below you will find the standard GAN criteria, along with a list of issues I have found. As criteria pass, a or will be replaced with a . Below the criteria you'll see a list of issues I've found. Feel free to work on them at any time. I will notify you when I'm done checking over the article. At that time I'll allow the standard one week for fixes to be made.

Criteria

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:

Issues found

Unfortunately I have to Quick-Fail this article due to several major issues:

• The lead is lacking information on gameplay and reception of the game. Per WP:LEAD, it should be a summary of the article
• Overall the prose needs copy edits and general cleanup. I recommend a peer review to help bring the prose up to snuff.
• It needs reorganization under Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines to comply with standards. Take a look at Backbreaker (video game) for how to organize a sports game article.
• There are {{Citation needed}} tags on the article.
• The Development and Promotion section has no info on the development of the game, only the promotion
• Soundtracks should not be listed unless they have been released commercially separate from the game, and then only with significant coverage themselves.
• The Reception section needs to be expand to at least twice its current size, organized by the positive/negative paragraphs, then type of comments (AI, graphics, etc).

Result: Quick-Failed

Reviewer: Teancum (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)