Talk:Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (PC video game)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (PC video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Cat's Tuxedo (talk · contribs) 18:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 21:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I'll be reviewing this article as part of the ongoing GAN backlog drive. --Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Initial comments

• There is unlikely any copyright violation in the article. Earwig's Copyvio Detector has reported only 13.8% in similarity.
• There are no cleanup banners, such as those listed at WP:QF, in the article.
• The article is stable.
• No previous GA reviews.

General comments

• Prose, spelling, and grammar checking.
  • No issues were found in the lede.
  • The rest of the article looks good. I did not find any grammar errors.
• Checking whether the article complies with MOS.
  • Add alt texts to the two images that are in the article.
  • I feel like the lede could be slightly expanded with content from the "Development and release" section. The article meets the rest of the MOS:LEDE guideline.
  • The article complies with the MOS:LAYOUT, MOS:WTW, and MOS:WAF guidelines. There are no embedded lists within the article, so I am skipping MOS:EMBED.
• Checking refs, verifiability, and whether there is original research.
  • References section with a {{reflist}} template is present in the article.
  • No referencing issues.
  • Listed references are reliable, most are new websites. I recommend archiving the rest of the unarchived references.
  • Spotchecked Ref 1, 2, 5, 7, 10, 12, 15, 18, 21, 23, 26–all verify the cited content. AGF on other citations.
    • Westlake Interactive developing the macOS version is unsourced.
  • Copyvio already checked.
• Checking whether the article is broad in its coverage.
  • The article addresses the main aspects, and it stays focused on the topic.
  • The Reception is well done.
  • The article stays on the topic.
• Checking whether the article is presented from an NPOV standpoint.
  • The article meets the criteria and is written in encyclopedic language.
• Checking whether the article is stable.
  • As noted in the initial comments, the article has been stable.
• Checking images.
  • Looks good. Images are uploaded under a non-free licence.

Final comments

@Cat's Tuxedo: There are minor issues to fix. Once they get addressed, I'll promote the article to GA. I'll put the article on hold for a week. --Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@Vacant0: Taken care of. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 05:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks good now. Promoting. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.