Talk:Polygon (website)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ugog Nizdast (talk · contribs) 14:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Nominator: Czar (talk · contribs) 17:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I will be reviewing this...expect it to be over within this week. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Looks good, only found a few issues at first glance.
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to 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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Article passes. 12:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Article passes. 12:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Article passes. 12:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments
 * Lead section: "included the editors-in-chief of three gaming sites." - Why not specify which gaming sites here? (done it myself 12:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC))
 * History: "The team works virtually in places including..." - I'm not sure I follow the meaning (or need) of this word here...please explain?
 * Criteria 2b: I've cn tagged accordingly three instances where it's required. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I've never needed to add citations for the types of facts for which you tagged—what part of 2b are you referencing? Also mid-sentence refs should be okay czar ♔   18:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * First one ("Bankoff considered...") and second ("They sought to set their content apart...") are opinions and WP:LIKELY, and the last one is also a major fact. Since LIKELY is subjective, I'm sure you don't mind adding those inlines. Of course, mid sentences refs are fine...personally, I just do it for cosmetic reasons or when I feel it interrupts the flow (so don't worry, nothing to do with this review). Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I added the citations for argument's sake, but I disagree with your interpretation of the criteria czar ♔   19:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I know that you mentioned in your edit summary that you have more review notes to come. Would you mind leaving the review open until the end of the month? I'll be out of town for the next week and moving the week after that, so I will disappear for a while if I'm doing it right. czar ♔   03:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I was being too strict with 2b. If this comes up again in future, I'll consult with my GA mentor. Anyway, now everything is fine, all that remains is two criteria and that I'll check later today. I think if all goes well, the review will get over within 24 hours since this is a short article and you've done a good job, there's probably hardly anything left to be done from your side. But even otherwise, it's fine....I'll keep it open until you notify me here. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, it seemed silly to keep this review pending for a month just for that tiny comment. This article passes, good job.
 * Outside this review, I have a question. What's the basis of adding the names Kotaku or Polygon itself in italics? I'm quite sure the former doesn't usually be italicized. Other example would be Rock, Paper, Shotgun, italics is only for magazines/journals/newspapers. So should Polygon be written like this? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * , thanks! Yes, WP:ITALICS, which says: Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized. So while Kotaku and Polygon are news sites, the question is whether Giant Bomb and IGN count, as they're somewhat closer to networks than news sources (a different conversation). czar ♔   04:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)