Talk:Midnight Club: Los Angeles/GA1

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

Reviewer: Teancum (talk · contribs) 15:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

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:
 * There are issues with MOS:NUMBERS and WP:YOU.

References are not formatted properly. Access dates, authors, and date of publication should be present where possible.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * There are very large portions of the prose that are unreferenced, and 20 references seems rather small for the size of the article. Additionally very few of the review scores are referenced.


 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * While the reviews all give very high marks, no mention is made of any criticism


 * 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:
 * Rationale for the gameplay image could be drastically improved. Additionally this seems to be more of a promotional screenshot and doesn't demonstrate gameplay.


 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * The secondary box are is unnecessary per WP:NFCC and should be removed.


 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

Unfortunately due to the number of issues I have to quick-fail this article. I will say that the improvements made over the last while have made it a much better, more informative read, but it just hasn't hit GA-standards as of yet. Keep hope alive, though. There's been made great strides made here. --Teancum (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)