Talk:Batman: The Dark Knight (video game)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 18:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria All of my comments are open for discussion. Once complete, I'll claim this review for points in the 2018 wikicup. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * These are my copyedits. Feel free to revert, revise, or discuss any of them.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * no concern
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * no concern
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * no concern
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * no concern
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * no concern
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * "The direction ... changed when Pandemic learned that the game had to be based on the film" - Is there more detail available on this? It seems to contradict earlier statements. What did Pandemic think they were making, a generic Batman game? A "loosely inspired" one? If nothing more is available, I recommend removing this sentence. It isn't vital to the paragraph, and as-is it's more teasing than informative.
 * I've removed it. The Unseen64 video says it happened after they got concept art of the Joker but doesn't say if that's what made it change. JOE BRO  64  11:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * no concern
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * no concern
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * no concern
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * n/a
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * n/a
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * One request for additional information under 3A. Otherwise everything looks great. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Responded above. Thanks for reviewing. JOE BRO  64  11:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * whoops, forgot to ping. JOE BRO  64  11:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Happy to promote this one. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)