Talk:Giant Bomb/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 18:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Should complete this one within a day or two ☯ Jag  uar  ☯ 18:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to 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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

 * Per WP:LEADCITE, citations are discouraged from the lead unless it's sourcing controversial information. I think ""a fun video game website"[4]" is alright to keep but it wouldn't hurt to cut down on a couple more
 * Though the lead does summarise most of the article, I noticed that nothing was mentioned about Ryan Davis' death (a pivotal point in its history)? The history part of the lead is looking dry but I think this is no problem
 * "Immediately after his termination" - really? Sounds like Jeff Gerstmann got vaporized by the Borg or something?!
 * "its sister-site Screened in May 2010." - Screened is not linked in its first mention here?
 * "March 2012 saw Shelby Bonnie sell Whiskey Media in 2 deals" - two
 * There are a lot of bold phrases in the Video and Quick Look sub sections which aren't allowed per WP:MOS
 * "Giant Bomb's news is written by Navarro" - who is this? Is it a pseudonym for somebody?
 * Is the list itself of Game of the Year awards necessary to include in the Game of the year awards section? Lists are usually discouraged from GAs
 * "Molyneux himself visited the London, UK" - no need to describe that London is in the UK, same goes with "San Francisco, USA" -
 * "lamented Giant Bomb's hiring of Dan Ryckert and Jason Oestreicher in July 2014, maintaining Giant Bomb's 100% white, male staff personnel" - who said this? Was this taken from a source itself or is it original research?

On hold
That's what I could find with this one. Generally a good article, though. If all of the above can be addressed and clarified then this will stand a chance of passing the GAN. I'm worried that something in there might be original research and a few prose issues remain, but otherwise it's all good. I'll leave this on hold for the standard seven days. Thanks ☯ Jag  uar  ☯ 22:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Close - promotion
Thanks for your improvements made here. After looking through the article again and reading the message left on my talk page, this article now meets the GA criteria. Well done ☯  Jag  uar  ☯ 16:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)