Talk:Club Penguin/GA2

GA Review

Any comments are welcome. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 22:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

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:

   The section about Child safety seems more like an advertisment even though all of them have proper citations. From that section:
   The system uses a number of different approaches in order to maintain a high level of security. The key approaches include:
   To me, "high level" is POV. Fixed

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Semi-protection is for ip vandalism

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:

   On hold until criterion #4 is fixed. Passed, as #4 has been fixed.

LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 23:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for that. I've reworded the child safety section so that it isn't a POV as it was - you were definitely correct about the wording. :) I considered moving some of the criticism into Child safety, (to join the "Orwellian dystopia" reference which was already there), but I thought that it may be better left in the "Reception and criticism" section. I'm happy to move it in there if you think it will provide more balance, though. - Bilby (talk) 03:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review! It's much appreciated. :) - Bilby (talk) 01:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Ditto. Thanks!--Vinni3 (talk) 06:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)