Talk:Grand Theft Auto IV/GA2

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

Reviewer: Teancum (talk · contribs) 14:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * 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:

Unfortunately there are several issues. The most visible (and cause of the quick-fail) is the inclusion of maintenance tags that cite an overly long plot and additional citations needed. To be helpful here are other issues I noticed after determining it was a quick-fail:


 * There are WP:LAYOUT issues. Paragraphs should never be only one or two sentences, yet this happens often, particularly in the Updates section
 * Version histories are discouraged per WP:GAMECRUFT, and as such should only be boiled down to the absolute most important aspects of updates. For example, we don't need to know that [major feature] was introduced on [date], only that it exists, and why it's a major feature.
 * The sections The Lost and the Damned and The Ballad of Gay Tony are redundant as they're both covered in separate articles and linked to/described in the section above them.
 * External links should never be in the body of the article. The second and third links in that section are also unnecessary or are prohibited per WP:ELNO
 * The date format is inconsistent, sometimes using a European date style, other times YYYY-DD-MM. I suggest integrating User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates.js into your monobook scripts. You can then run a script to change all the dates to a consistent format for you
 * The publisher field in references is also incosistent. Sometimes it wikilinks to the site/network, other times it uses [name].com
 * Per WP:LEADCITE references shouldn't be in the lead if the information exists in the body. WP:LEAD states that all information in the lead should be in the body, therefore references should be moved out of the lead.
 * Why is included in the prose? Remember that button configs are different per platform.
 * File:GTAIV Niko and Dimitri.jpg has no real reason to be in the article as it does not convey information that can't be explained via text. It therefore fails WP:NFCC.