Talk:Grand Theft Auto IV/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Teancum (talk · contribs) 14:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

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:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Unfortunately there are several issues. The most visible (and cause of the quick-fail) is the inclusion of maintenance tags that cite an overly long plot and additional citations needed. To be helpful here are other issues I noticed after determining it was a quick-fail:

• There are WP:LAYOUT issues. Paragraphs should never be only one or two sentences, yet this happens often, particularly in the Updates section
• Version histories are discouraged per WP:GAMECRUFT, and as such should only be boiled down to the absolute most important aspects of updates. For example, we don't need to know that [major feature] was introduced on [date], only that it exists, and why it's a major feature.
• The sections The Lost and the Damned and The Ballad of Gay Tony are redundant as they're both covered in separate articles and linked to/described in the section above them.
• External links should never be in the body of the article. The second and third links in that section are also unnecessary or are prohibited per WP:ELNO
• The date format is inconsistent, sometimes using a European date style, other times YYYY-DD-MM. I suggest integrating User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates.js into your monobook scripts. You can then run a script to change all the dates to a consistent format for you
• The publisher field in references is also incosistent. Sometimes it wikilinks to the site/network, other times it uses [name].com
• Per WP:LEADCITE references shouldn't be in the lead if the information exists in the body. WP:LEAD states that all information in the lead should be in the body, therefore references should be moved out of the lead.
• Why is X included in the prose? Remember that button configs are different per platform.
• File:GTAIV Niko and Dimitri.jpg has no real reason to be in the article as it does not convey information that can't be explained via text. It therefore fails WP:NFCC.