Talk:Dream Chronicles: The Book of Air/GA2

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

Reviewer: Deryck C. 14:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

In terms of content, I think the article is generally well-written (without going into too much detail about grammar and style). However, I'm inclined not to let this article pass GA for the following reasons:
 * 1) Most of the gameplay and synopsis sections appear to be unreferenced. As such, I can't judge whether there are elements of original research.
 * 2) The synopsis' (and the synoptic part of the intro) tone feels more like a game review than an encyclopedic article. Some game review-like text isn't necessarily a bad thing, however I feel that this article's language is slightly too slanted towards the game review side. I'm using Portal (video game), which is an FA, as a benchmark.
 * 3) The audio track-list, and certain statements in the "reception" section are unreferenced.

I'm also unsure whether all the cited sources qualify as reliable and independent, although I'm inclined to give the benefit of doubt for this one. I'm requesting second opinion on the first two points regarding video game-specific style guidelines on Wikipedia. --Deryck C. 14:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Teancum
 * One thing that wasn't mentioned was the excessive use of screenshots. There's a WP:NFCC violation there which will fail point 6.
 * There seem to be a lot of primary sources and only a total of 15 sources for a lengthy article.

I don't see that this can pass at the moment. --Teancum (talk) 00:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I agree with the above. It's a nice article, but it's lacking in references and 9/15 of the current refs are from the developer's website. Also there are three screenshots which, per NFCC8 is probably excessive. The middle one, for example, doesn't increase an unfamiliar reader's understanding of any aspect of the game whatsoever. It's just not GA quality right now. Regards,  Swarm   X 19:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by Swarm

With the issues Teancum, Swarm and I addressed above, I'm afraid I need to fail this Good Article nomination. Do please renominate the article when the issues have been addressed. --Deryck C. 23:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Conclusion


 * 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: