Talk:Warcraft: Orcs & Humans/GA1

GA Review

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

1. Well-written:
N

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; andN

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.Y

2. Verifiable with no original research:
Y

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;Y

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); andY

(c) it contains no original research.Y

3. Broad in its coverage:
N

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; andY

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).N

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Y
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Y
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
N

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; andN

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.N

• The prose definitely needs work. There's no need for subsections if they are no more than five lines each, it clutters the article
• Warcraft Orcs v Humans 01.png needs a much better Fair use rationale, is overly large (the standard is 200px) and needs a much shorter caption
• The Reception section needs major cleanup. Consider combining everything into around five paragraphs.
• There is far too much detail for things like spells and things, and it unfortunately borders WP:GAMECRUFT

Reviewer: Teancum (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Why was this failed with no hold at all. It is customary to hold for seven days. Your points could easily have been answered / addressed in that time. This looks like a very shoddy review to me - you didn't bother to put an under review tag on the GAn page acording to this diff.[1]. Please familiarise yourself with the review process before thinking about undertaking any more reviews. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)