Talk:Broken Sword: The Sleeping Dragon/GA1

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

Reviewer: Allens (talk · contribs) 00:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hrm. Unfortunately, I would have had to flunk the article on criterion 1a, except that I went through and cleaned up the grammar, etc. I'll have to check on whether copyediting is sufficient involvement to disqualify myself from being the reviewer - I'm consulting with one of the GA reviewer mentors (Arsenikk) right now. Allens (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Alright, looks like I'm OK. Arsenikk did point out a couple problems, namely:
 * A lack of accessdates in citations
 * Lack of a screenshot (not required but greatly preferable); a single screenshot falls within fair use, although more than one may not
 * I'll continue to go over it and other stuff (copyediting its sequel plus the Parliament of Croatia article). Allens (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Still looking at the rest (anything not down as good) - just wanted to put down these to keep track
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1a now looks OK; will clean up 1b if need be (checking).
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * References checked (BTW, you seem to be a bit mixed up between "accessdate" and "date" - the former is the date at which someone last accessed the review/whatever, including in order to verify them, while the latter is the date the review/whatever was published, if available); sources appear reliable for the purpose; no OR found.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * "Setting and characters" could use some expansion - the setting appears to be modern-day but with secret superscience or magic, and should be commented on; a bit more detail should be present as to at least some of the other characters. "Setting and characters" fixed, good job - I note these could be used as the basis for an expansion to the linked list of characters article. Does not appear overly detailed.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Covers major critiques, especially now.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No problems noted.
 * 1) 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):
 * Checked 6a; good job on finding the developer images.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass!

Comments

 * All accessdates are added -
 * Screenshot added -
 * I think I added enough to the "Setting and characters" section. :) --Khanassassin (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I deleted "26/32 + 6 mixed, 0-)", because I think it's kind of unnecessary, and I never seen that added next to the MetaScore... --Khanassassin (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. I thought that it had gotten 0 negative reviews was of interest, but I'm not experienced in the area of video game reviews... Allens (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)