Talk:The Game of Cootie/GA1

GA Review

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

• File:Original Cootie box cover and components.jpg: a stronger rationale, other than to "To illustrate commentary on the game", should be offered. Something in the line of identification of the subject, recognition, as well as to aid the reader in conceptualizing the playing pieces (especially of a fictitious bug).
• File:Cootie Milton Bradley.jpg: same as above, but the focus here should be on why this image should be here; a reason could be to illustrate the differences in the packaging and playing pieces over the decades.

Basically the rationales should state why text cannot fully replace the images.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Mostly excellent prose.

   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:

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:

   On hold till stronger image rationales can be construedCongratulations!

The image rationales have been upgraded and clarified. ItsLassieTime (talk) 03:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I have further added some words, and consider them adequate. Consider this a GA. Jappalang (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)