Talk:Alan Wake/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Vantine84 (talk · contribs) 07:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: Pass
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: Pass
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: Pass
 * Pass or Fail: Pass

References
 * This is trivial, but there is no need for inlines in the lead/infobox unless they follow a contentious statement (this lead has none).
 * Per checklinks, some of these references are currently dead links. GameSpot in particular just moved everything around; the content should still be there but the URL has changed.
 * The last paragraph in Gameplay cites no sources.

Coverage
 * The downloadable content section has no mention of the reception or performance of either release. Even a sentence or two would be nice.
 * The Cast section is pretty tiny. It could be cut, or the list of voice actors could be put into Story somewhere.

The article is quite good and the notes above are small problems. Great work! — Mr. V (t – c)   07:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Since the nominator only made four edits three months ago, and only two were trivial fixes to this article, I took the liberty of addressing all the issues you mentioned above. Let me know if everything looks good. —Torchiest talkedits 02:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * @Torchiest:  The Gamestation interview link is broken...I'm unable to find it on their website. But since it is used only twice in the article, and in sentences that are also cited by other sources, it can simply be cut. We're good to go! —  Mr. V (t – c)   00:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)