GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Sjones23 (talk · contribs) 02:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- Dead citations have been replaced. Will check for plagiarism and copyvios a bit later.
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Discussion edit
@Hahc21: I'm placing this review on hold for now. Since you are a mentor for GAs in regards to video games, can you please look into the issues I have regarding the OR and copyvio concerns? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Sjones23: What concerns do you have? I can help to address them if I know what they are. Red Phoenix talk 02:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- I wanted to double check to see if there's OR or any copyvios, as well as to make sure that all of the dead citations have to be replaced. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- If it helps, on copyright violations, I'll refer you to Earwig's Copyvio detector, which shows no likely violations and what does have a percentage is because a direct quote is used. Checklinks shows me no dead links, and everything should be archived regardless of whether or not it was a dead link to begin with. On OR, I can give you only my personal assurance that I vetted everything out, but even I will admit I'm not 100% foolproof. I am certainly glad to wait until you get to hear back, but hopefully this helps your review. Red Phoenix talk 03:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- I think it looks good to me. No major copyright violations or original research here. Unless someone objects, I'll wait for a few more days before I pass or fail it. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- No further objections. This article has now been passed. Good work. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- If it helps, on copyright violations, I'll refer you to Earwig's Copyvio detector, which shows no likely violations and what does have a percentage is because a direct quote is used. Checklinks shows me no dead links, and everything should be archived regardless of whether or not it was a dead link to begin with. On OR, I can give you only my personal assurance that I vetted everything out, but even I will admit I'm not 100% foolproof. I am certainly glad to wait until you get to hear back, but hopefully this helps your review. Red Phoenix talk 03:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- I wanted to double check to see if there's OR or any copyvios, as well as to make sure that all of the dead citations have to be replaced. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)