Talk:Counter-Strike 2/GA1

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

Nominator: 14:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: CanonNi (talk · contribs) 11:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll review this one. This is my first review, so please leave me a message on my talk page if I do anything wrong, thanks.   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * Passed. Well written and grammatically correct.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * Passed. Complies with the MoS and is properly formatted.
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * Passed. References are formatted properly.
 * 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):
 * Passed. I checked 10 random sources:


 * C. It contains no original research:
 * Passed. All statements are supported by reliable sources.
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Passed. No copyvios.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * Passed. Contains almost all information about the game, including its gameplay, development, and reception. The article would be very useful for the average reader.
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * Passed. Stays on topic and contains lots of (but not too much) detail.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * Passed. Neutrally written with an encyclopedic tone.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * Passed. No reverts in the past month (apart from some socks promoting a case opening site) and no edit wars in the article's history.
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Passed. All images are properly licensed.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Passed. Images are relevant to their respective sections and have descriptive captions related to the topic.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Passed. thank you for your amazing work! As a CS2 player myself, I found this article extremely informative, and, to be honest, this is one of the best articles I've read in a while. Keep up the great work!   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 11:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)