Talk:LittleBigPlanet (2008 video game)/GA1

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Overall I find this a very good article, although a bit long at some parts. There's a ton of changes in the edit history this week so it might be a bit unstable.
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * As far as I can tell, yes.
 * 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:
 * I'm missing a critism section though, if there is any.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * Lot of (constructive) changes in the last week.
 * 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:
 * I'm going to request another opinion on this one, since this is a quite popular article and I'm no review expert. -- Mr Stalker  ( talk ) 10:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Passed :D Just keep up the good work! Also consider doing a GA review of your own. -- Mr Stalker  ( talk ) 15:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * I'm going to request another opinion on this one, since this is a quite popular article and I'm no review expert. -- Mr Stalker  ( talk ) 10:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Passed :D Just keep up the good work! Also consider doing a GA review of your own. -- Mr Stalker  ( talk ) 15:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to request another opinion on this one, since this is a quite popular article and I'm no review expert. -- Mr Stalker  ( talk ) 10:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Passed :D Just keep up the good work! Also consider doing a GA review of your own. -- Mr Stalker  ( talk ) 15:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm happy to over a second opinion, I'll just review it and get back to you shortly. \ / (⁂) 01:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Gone through the article, and I would have no problems in passing the article. Apart from the first line, which needs a little rewording, the article is satisfactory. I also believe the stability relates to edit wars and content disputes, not necessarily good faith improvements. \ / (⁂) 02:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

As a fairly regular editor on this article, I just wanted to point out in response to "Fair representation without bias: I'm missing a criticism section though, if there is any." I thought Criticism sections were generally discouraged? Instead, this article's Reception section offers a balanced account of the coverage the game has received, good and bad. Thanks for the feedback.  ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 09:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I don't know actually. I've just seen it in a lot of other articles. You're probably right. As I said, I'm no expert. -- Mr Stalker  ( talk ) 15:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)