Talk:Make Something Unreal/GA1
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 05:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC) I'll take this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC) Good Article Checklist
- Well-written -the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
- Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and it contains no original research.
- Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- Illustrated, if possible, by images: images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
Good Article review progress box
|
- Disambig links:No issues
- Reference check: One issue
- Make Something Unreal Overall Winners Announced (info) [ign.com] - 404
Comments: Very short and nothing on the development of the contest and its origins. The details are a bit lacking and this is despite having four events throughout the history. Each event seems to get a paragraph of content and it can be quite lacking for the reader. This makes it more inline with a C class article as a result. No background information is provided on the competitors, or the winners for that matter, and it just seems to be more of the name-dropping that really doesn't add to the context. The prose does need some fixes, so please give it a copyedit after filling in some more details. It seems pointless to post up the issues that I found when they can be rectified in the expansions. Some of the weaknesses of the article is the lack of coverage on the runner-up. Of the winners, no development is given for their works, despite the lengthy period given in which to develop the game. For winners like Epigenesis - I'd expect some details, maybe even their own article, because these entries are quite interesting and the reader should have some context on the work needed to produce the winning entry and why it won. Those are both things I'd expect under the broad and focused aspect. Placing it on hold now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. I'm going to ask you to fail this for now, it's been 8 days and I haven't had time to do any of the above due to being in the middle of exams. I'll definitely take all your advice on board and aim to improve the article at some point and resubmit :) Samwalton9 (talk) 10:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)