Talk:Development of Duke Nukem Forever/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.'' I'll be reviewing the article over the next few days. Below you will find the standard GAN criteria, along with a list of issues I have found. As criteria pass, a or  will be replaced with a. Below the criteria you'll see a list of issues I've found. Feel free to work on them at any time. I will notify you when I'm done checking over the article. At that time I'll allow the standard one week for fixes to be made.


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of 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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

Issues found

 * Most references seem reliable, but some need formatting with titles, author, etc. Additionally publishers should have correct titles and italics where necessary (for example, Game Informer, not GameInformer). Right now there are multiple iterations of publishers, some spelled one way, some another, some wikilinked, some externally linked (and should be), some not wikilinked. Publishers should also be wikilinked where possible.
 * I believe that I've identified and modified them all.


 * What makes the following sources reliable?
 * http://talkinrealatyou.blogspot.com/ (#44)
 * http://www.squidcakes.blogspot.com/ (#45)
 * http://liquidmesh3d.com/animation.html (#61)
 * Well, it seems the issue can be ignored entirely. #61 doesn't have the quote that was cited anymore, and neither #44 and #45 seemed to directly relate to the point, but I was able to find an alternate link that seems to relate to the prose.


 * So far prose looks pretty good. No quick spot-check issues.
 * Hooray!


 * Please update the descriptions of File:Duke Nukem Screenshot2.jpg and File:Dukenukemforever2007.jpg to explain why it's necessary for the reader to see these. The captions should also be updated with similar information. In other words, why are we showing these images to the reader?
 * Do those work?


 * http://www.shacknews.com/docs/press/20090518_dnf_3dr_.x is dead. Can you see if the URL has been adjusted by ShackNews or if it can be replaced?
 * If Meqon is relatively unknown why does it need to be linked? (it's a redlink)
 * Very astute.


 * Whole numbers under 10 should be spelled out as words, except when in lists, tables or infoboxes (WP:NUMERAL). I found one, but there may be others.
 * As far as my Edit > Find searches are showing, that was the only one.

Reviewer: Teancum (talk · contribs) 14:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Inline citations belong immediately after punctuation marks (WP:CITEFOOT). I know there's at least one in the Gearbox revival and release, 2010–2011 section


 * I've completed the review. Please correct the following issues to have it pass GAN
 * Have I caught all of the issues? Thanks! --  Zanimum (talk) 20:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good now. I need a bit to have time to pass the GAN, but it's definitely GA quality now. --Teancum (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you in advance! --  Zanimum (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)