Talk:Need for Speed: ProStreet/GA1

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

Reviewer: Berrely (talk · contribs) 14:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * Article maintains good grammar, it has a good sentence structure, doesn't seem to be any errors.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * The lead is nicely written, providing a good overview. The article layout follows standard and sections aren't too long. All attributions are sourced.
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * Well formatted list of references
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * I've looked at the sources and I can't find a single unreliable one. Most sources used are marked as reliable in WP:RSP. After running the article through some automated tools, it came up with no dead links.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * I've looked at all claims and statements in the article, and they are all backed up by sources. I can't find any OR here.
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Earwig comes up with no copyright violations
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * The article addresses all main aspects of the subject.
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * Important aspects are covered well, and no undue weight or unnecesary detail is given on subjects that do not need it.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * The article maintains a NPOV throughtout it.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * I've got a nice little script that does this for me, but I also took a look at the history just in case. The article is very stable and there has not been any rewversions for the past 3 months.
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * All media is non-free, and valid fair-use rationales have been given for them. Free media cannot be used as the game is coprighted.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Congratulations! This was a very well written article.
 * Congratulations! This was a very well written article.

Thanks for your review, really appreciated. --Niwi3 (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)