GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: 23W (talk · contribs) 22:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Time to return the favor. 23W (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Very nice work; obviously polished beforehand. Only question: is there any verification from Pollock that the Sonic Team Forum interview is genuine? I think it is, but being a self-published forum post, you may want to clarify this to readers somehow. Maybe look through this old snapshot of his site here. Erm, looks like all InvisionFree links are actually blacklisted, so I can't make any copy edits. Might want to try requesting for it to be whitelisted, but until you can confirm that it's real, it looks like it will have to be omitted. Not a big deal. 23W (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'd forgotten all about that. I realized that while preparing the page for GAN and started a discussion at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist, but it looks like it still hasn't gotten any responses. There's a good amount of information there, too, so I'm hesitant to just scrap it. For a start, I'll mention at that page that this has become urgent. Tezero (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Let's hope they can see it as authentic. For the record, here's two old interviews of Pollock regarding his work on the show: [1] and [2]. Maybe you can retool the paragraph to see if it has similar information if it's not too much work. 23W (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'll try. Thank you, by the way; I never would've found those. If they make sufficient substitutes, I'll try to link Mike Pollock's website somewhere there so the reader knows it's really from him. Tezero (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- 23W, there was some content not covered in these two interviews, but I was able to stitch something alright together. I'll leave the whitelisting request up, but I think you can pass this now. Tezero (talk) 01:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- Done; good work. 23W (talk) 01:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- 23W, there was some content not covered in these two interviews, but I was able to stitch something alright together. I'll leave the whitelisting request up, but I think you can pass this now. Tezero (talk) 01:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'll try. Thank you, by the way; I never would've found those. If they make sufficient substitutes, I'll try to link Mike Pollock's website somewhere there so the reader knows it's really from him. Tezero (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Let's hope they can see it as authentic. For the record, here's two old interviews of Pollock regarding his work on the show: [1] and [2]. Maybe you can retool the paragraph to see if it has similar information if it's not too much work. 23W (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)