Talk:Mega Man Network Transmission/GA1

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

Reviewer: Czarkoff (talk · contribs) 12:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Status
This section is supposed to be edited only be reviewer(s).'
 * 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):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 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) 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:

Discussion
Regarding the issues:
 * 1) 1(b): per MOS:ABBR "an acronym or initialism should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page, followed by the abbreviation in brackets". Eg., instead of "PET (PErsonal Terminal)" the article should read as "personal terminal (PET)" or (probably) "personal terminal (PET)". (In this example I would also drop quotation marks: they are not needed.)
 * ✅ ~ Hibana (talk) 12:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) 1(b): the references should follow the same date format.
 * Which date formats are out of sync? ~ Hibana (talk) 12:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I must have mistaken something. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) 2(c): references 5-9 (as of ) constitute original research, as they just cite the phrases from the game itself. I would suggest to remove them and find the real references for the last paragraph.
 * I'm not sure I understand how this constitutes original research, as citing the game itself through this template is a generally accepted practice per the video game project guidelines. Plot details for video games are very difficult to source otherwise. I, as well as numerous fellow editors, have gotten several articles to GA using this method. Some FAs (see Chrono Cross, Golden Sun, etc.) use it as well. ~ Hibana (talk) 12:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Didn't notice that. Sorry. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Otherwise the article looks great. Good work! &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)