Talk:Maniac Mansion/GA1

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

I'll be reviewing the article over the next few days. Below you will find the standard GAN criteria, along with a list of issues I have found. As criteria pass, a or  will be replaced with a. Below the criteria you'll see a list of issues I've found. Feel free to work on them at any time. I will notify you when I'm done checking over the article. At that time I'll allow the standard one week for fixes to be made.

Criteria

 * 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:

Issues found

 * The box art could use Vgboxart fur, but the current rationale is quite strong so I doubt it'll be challenged in the future
 * There are a few instances of misordered refs. They should be numerically ordered where possible
 * After "would need a scripting language to create the game they had envisioned."
 * After "allowed the developer to easily port Maniac Mansion to other platforms."
 * After "and provided further coverage later in the year."

Still looking over the prose. Give me ~24 hours.

Reviewer: Teancum (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought that there was a bot for automatically ordering refs. I haven't seen it around in awhile, so maybe it broke down. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

✅ - I didn't find anything else. I don't have any time to do all of the legwork for passing the article at the moment (leaving for home) but I can do it later this evening. Nice work! --Teancum (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! I hope we can take it through FAC without too much trouble. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)