Talk:Neverwinter Nights 2/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Well-written. Just mind the minor punctuation errors that I have corrected.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The second half of the first paragraph and the entire third paragraph in the Plot subsection are unsourced. Please add citations to verifiable sources.
 * Don't really know what to say about this one—you're not gonna find reviews or other reliable secondary sources detailing events that far into the game, and citing the game itself is impractical because everything in the Plot section is a summary of the game itself. The game's narrator doesn't turn and say "At the end of Act I, the party dispatches the githyanki, rescues Shandra, and learns of the origin of the shards," you know? —    Levi van Tine  ( t  –  c )   02:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed; although for FA citations (even if to things like quotes from the game) are needed, as with Planescape: Torment, although I don't see why they're so essential (for the plot section only) for a GA. Certainly the rest of the article needs good citations, the plot is basically "sourced" to the game itself. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There's got to be something we can do here. I am wary about removing it entirely because that would fragment that whole section. Perhaps there is a way to eliminate the detail there and use the other sources before and after those unsourced portions. I'll try and see what I can find. Remember that, per WP:WAF, while secondary sources are preferred, primary sources can also be used, provided content stays in a real-world perspective. MuZemike 19:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it's as possible to do here, but I've been keeping an eye on the Planescape FAC, and I like what Drilnoth and Jimmy Blackwing have been doing to source the plot summary. The difference is that there, they have a copy of the script to work with, so like I say it may not be possible to do the same thing here if that sort of access is not possible. BOZ (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go ahead and pass for right now, because I have a strong feeling that there is at least one source out there that is verifiable for this. After having read a walkthrough on Act 2 of the official game guide by BradyGames, I'm sure this information would be in here in regards to Acts 1 and 3, respectively. I would suggest someone get their hands on that game guide, because I'm about 95% certain it's going to be in there. MuZemike 01:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Very comprehensive.
 * 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):
 * The boxart does not have a fair-use rationale. The other images' fair-use rationales need to be strengthened up a bit. Spell out why the images are necessary to the understanding to those who read the article; I prefer to use the non-free use rationale template as that spells out specifically what is required per WP:NFCC. All of the images also need to be reduced in size, preferably to around 256px (I tried to with the boxart but had to revert because my Linux paint program is not very good in image resizing as far as quality is concerned).
 * I went ahead and strengthened the fair-use rationales. MuZemike 19:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * GAN placed on hold until the necessary improvements can be made. MuZemike 17:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * GAN placed on hold until the necessary improvements can be made. MuZemike 17:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Other things to watch for (for future reference): This should help you as this article approaches FA. MuZemike 17:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref tags should be formatted as instead of  ; that is, a space between the right quotation mark and the slash. This is used for proper XHTML formatting.
 * Don't use forced image-resizing in the images in the body of the article, as this goes against WP:MOS and can pose some usability problems.
 * Use vgrelease and vgratings templates in the infobox, and stay away from using flagicons.
 * Watch out for overlinking. (I still need to go through and correct this at the time of this review.) Common rule of thumb is once in the lead, once in the infobox, and once in the body. In citations, publisher should only be wikilinked once.
 * Try to stay away from one-paragraph sections or subsections if at all possible. I have combined some subsections and removed one. This can also help take the TOC more concise.
 * Thanks for the review; I'll try to work on some of these soon. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you! I put in the nomination, but others did much more of the work than I did. BOZ (talk) 22:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Passed. Good job! Find the sources per above before pushing toward FA, however, because this will be shot down for that. MuZemike 01:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 01:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)