Talk:The Secret of Monkey Island/GA1

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

Reviewer: Altava (talk · contribs) 21:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Claiming. I'll review this momentarily. Emmy  Altava  21:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
 * QFC: Nothing awful. Full review impending...


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * There are a few quotes that it might be wise to cite more directly, but no gaping issues as to references. They're all there, and they're all good. Emmy   Altava  23:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * MobyGames is not considered an RS, but for the purpose it's used for, it's probably okay. Likewise, Kotaku wasn't reliable in 2008, but it provides proof of its claims, so I'll count it as RS for now. No issues. Emmy   Altava  23:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * C. No original research:
 * Article is well-sourced. Though ideally there would be citations throughout, citing a plot is difficult and the game would verify it anyway. Pass. Emmy   Altava  23:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * With video games, I expect solid reception and development sections. This article provides them in spades. Glorious. Emmy   Altava  23:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * B. Focused:
 * Definitely. I'm more than satisfied with the amount of information in the article. Emmy   Altava  23:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Surely there must be a bit more criticism? This could hinder further progression beyond GA. In any case, there's adequate representation from both positive and negative points of view, so this section's alright. Emmy   Altava  23:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * No apparent stability issues. Emmy   Altava  23:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Free images when possible, and nonfree have rationales and are used only as necessary. Stellar! Emmy   Altava  21:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * Captions are suitable, images are sufficient. Emmy   Altava  23:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass: I have reviewed several articles now. Some good, and some bad. The quality of this ones puts each and every one of them to shame. This is probably one of the highest-quality and most fascinating articles I've read about video games here, and I encourage all of you who contributed to it to seek higher statuses for this game. You've got something very good going on here, and though I don't know what it is, I can say with complete certainty that this is a good article. Emmy   Altava  23:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind review. Electroguv, Guyinblack, Sabre and I put in a fair bit of work on this article. Glad it passed GAN so easily. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Pass: I have reviewed several articles now. Some good, and some bad. The quality of this ones puts each and every one of them to shame. This is probably one of the highest-quality and most fascinating articles I've read about video games here, and I encourage all of you who contributed to it to seek higher statuses for this game. You've got something very good going on here, and though I don't know what it is, I can say with complete certainty that this is a good article. Emmy   Altava  23:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind review. Electroguv, Guyinblack, Sabre and I put in a fair bit of work on this article. Glad it passed GAN so easily. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)