Talk:Gunstar Heroes/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Abryn (talk · contribs) 16:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Are the minecart/helicopter levels autoscrollers? It may be worthwhile to put that down if sources exist to demonstrate that with an explanation of what it means.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   I took no issue with the sources except for The Next Level, which I'm not familiar with. I checked the staff page, and while there are a number of people involved, none of them seem to have a history or credentials for their position. I also could not find an editorial policy on the website.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The images all seem good except for the animated gif. I see the merit of the gif, but I take issue with its source being a forum. Is it possible to reproduce this image or find an alternative example? It would also be nice to see a caption for the box art.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Aside from that image concern, this is an excellent article. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 19:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey @Abryn, I promised the user I'd respond to this a while ago because they're on a Wikibreak right now. On the minecart/helicopter levels, I looked at gameplay footage and they don't seem like traditional autoscrolling (you still move left and right normally). The cited sources also don't describe them as such, so I think the way prose handles it now is fine. I do agree The Next Level is probably not the best source and it wouldn't harm to replace it, but I have seen it used in GAs and FAs with no problem. The source for the gif being a forum doesn't really strike me as much of a problem; it's not a copyright violation, and AFAIK sources for images don't have to be reliable for the encyclopedia (the relevant guideline doesn't say anything about that). TarkusAB should be back in less than a week, so while I think this is GA quality I also think we should wait to hear what he thinks. JOEBRO64 19:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Abryn: Sorry for the delay, I went on a wikibreak for a month and just returned. I will get to the fixes this week. Thanks @TheJoebro64: for covering while I was gone. TarkusAB^talk 20:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

It's nbd. Honestly, aside from being unsure on The Next Level, everything seems peachy keen after Joebro's clarifications. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 01:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Abryn: OK I've removed The Next Level since they're coverage didn't add much commentary. However, I will say that if they are used to a greater extent in other articles, I think their reliability should be examined more closely. They have posted some exclusive interviews with industry leaders, and employed some writers that later wrote for other RSs, so it seems they have (or had, I think they're defunct) some degree of professionalism. Anyways, thanks for the review. TarkusAB^talk 00:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Article is looking good. If you want to bring up The Next Level at The Video game WikiProject's Sources talk page, I would encourage you to do so to determine its viability. Anyway, I'm comfortable with passing. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 08:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)