Talk:GoldenEye 007 (1997 video game)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Scampioen (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Looks great, but got a few comments. On hold till they are adressed.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

• "The multiplayer mode features all of the characters in the game, including enemies and civilians. At first, only 8 characters are available, with 25 more becoming available as progress is made through the game"

Perhaps "singleplayer campaign" is better than "game"? It was confusing the first time I read it.

• "Also, when a player slaps, it's only viewable from the first person perspective. When viewed through the third person, the other player would seem not to be throwing a punch."

I don't really understand what you mean here. The sentence seems a bit out of place to me (is this relevant to multiplayer gameplay?). Also, it's the first time you talk about switching perspectives. If the player is able to do so, wouldn't it be better to mention it up higher?

• Made a minor edit myself, if you disagree please tell me

1. B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

• Ref. 28 gives a cite error to me (appearing in red).
• Ref. 21 is missing page numbers
• Ref. 22 is missing a publisher
• Ref. 30 is a dead link it seems
• Ref. 29 doesn't seems to be leading to the correct information (it should mention the Virtual Boy Goldeneye Racing game, but can't see it)
• ref. 35 publisher?
• ref. 37 author, publisher?
• ref 46-52 publisher?

1. C. No original research:

• "It also topped their most recent list of the top 10 multiplayer games." is unsourced. Can you find the a/the source?

1. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

2. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Just a quick comment: are there really no negative reviews or points of critique you can mention? (don't go digging one up from an obscure magazine, it's ok for me if there are none in the major publications).

3. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

4. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Images are tagged, both are fair use but doesn't seem a problem to me (as far as i know).

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Relevant

5. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Great article, i'll give you some time to adress the issues raised. If anyone else has comments, feel free to add them! Also, other editors seem to have contributed significantly to this article. Are they aware of this GAN?

I'm going to comment here that the user which nominated the article essentially did so as a driveby nomination, along with a number of other articles. Suggest quick-failing until main contributors are ready to take to GA. --Izno (talk) 04:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above statement. Besides, I think there are a lot of issues with this article, and I don't see this passing GAN in a week's time. --Niwi3 (talk) 09:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I agree. Quick Fail untill it's improved/the main editors take it to GAN — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scampioen (talk • contribs) 15:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)