Talk:Go (game)/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 00:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Article is easy to read and understand.

   B. MoS compliance:

   Units of measurement (e.g. the size of the board) should be available in both metric and imperial (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Units_of_measurement and please use the {{convert| }} template. Regarding images, as per WP:MOSIMAGES, use {{commons}} template to indicate more images exist on WikiMedia Commons. Also, images should have an alt attribute added for visually impaired readers. See WP:ALT for more info

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Strategy section needs better sourcing.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Two dead links (see comments below).

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   The article is too long for so many main articles. Generally, when a main article is listed, what follows is a summary of that article. If the reader wants more information, he or she can click the link provided by the {{main}} tag. However, in this article, there are often several paragraphs after each main tag. If Rules of Go exists, then what should exist in this article is a {{main}} link to that one, and a one to three paragraph summary of the rules. What exists here is a treatise on the rules that is completely duplicated by the Rules of Go page. And the most obvious offenders are the sections on Rules of Go and Go equipment (less detail, please) but all of them could use a bit of shortening, I think. This is an overview article since so many main articles exist. Please rewrite this article to be more concise.

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:

   This is going to take some work to make the changes, which is why I'm not putting it on hold. Please re-nominate when these issues have been taken care of. I'm going to watch the page, and when it is re-nominated, I'll be happy to do a quick(er) review, verify the changes, and pass it.

Comments

Review in process now. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 00:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• References 86 and 94 are dead links. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 00:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Review completed ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 01:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the Good Article criteria suggest that either measurements or pictures must follow the rsepective manual of style. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation

I understood that references to dead links are allowed... perhaps I am wrong. If the information was once published it can be accessed through archives.

I agree about rules and equipment, actually there is some material that should not be placed under Equipment.--ZincBelief (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Outside view

I agree with the basic issue, but actually think the Rules section isn't bad at present. Equipment definitely could use trimming. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)