Talk:Flight Unlimited/GA1

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

Reviewer: Creating review page. Prime Blue (talk) 12:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Prose: (1) The shocking thing first: a quick look over "Development" had me count some 50 direct quotes. Most of those will need to be reworked into regular prose or indirect quotes – so that'd be something to work on while I review the rest of the article. (2) Not too sure that "hoops" is enough of a standard English noun to be readily understandable. If I hadn't played Pilotwings 64, I don't think I would have known what you meant. Maybe something like "flying rings" would work better in the lead, and as an additional clarification in "Gameplay"? MoS: "Navier-Stokes equations" needs an en dash (–) instead of a hyphen (-). Would also remove this from the lead, because it is not apparent to readers what it means just yet. The external link to the downloads is dead.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Both the live web and archived versions of this source are blank white pages for me.
 * I don't know why; they work fine for me. Not sure how I could fix them. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 14:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Article uses reliable sources and contains no original research.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * All major topics of WP:VG/GL covered without going into unnecessary detail.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * No personal analyses or opinions in the article.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Okay, I definitely won't put all the FA-esque prose problems and suggestions here, because the list is seriously growing, and all those comments are far too nit-picky for a regular GA review. Not to mention that it would be confusing to review the article with all the changes. We'll have a separate peer review on that after I'm done with the GA review. Prime Blue (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)