Talk:Halo 4: Forward Unto Dawn/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 03:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I will be reviewing this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 03:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

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

---

Good job overall, my only concern is with the sourcing.

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   The prose was a little rough in spots but I did some copy-editing and I think it looks good now. The treatment of fictional material is exemplary.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The references are mostly good, but a couple seem dubious. What makes Machinima Prime and Machinima.com reliable sources? I don't have a problem with youtube sources as long as they are reliable but those two seem sketchy to me. Also, the Mega Bloks and McFarlane Toys references are primary sources, I guess it's all right given what they are being used to support but if there is something else available it would be better.

   I added this "review" of the Mega Bloks kit, I think it's a decent source; they have an editorial team dedicated to the "geekdad" section of the website, even if it doesn't present much new information it's a secondary source to back up the info of the primary. Unfortunately for the McFarlane model I could only find these sort of things: [1][2], just the press release reworded. I think the Machinima and Machinima Prime sources are reliable because they are cast interviews, the opinions are those of the cast rather than those of the Machinima staff. Machinima didn't publish a review of the series and it would definitely not be reliable for that as they would have a massive COI as a distributor.

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):

   Images are good and have appropriate fair-use rationales when necessary. Consider adding a picture or two of the actors if one is available.

   I considered that, but the poster contains the surviving characters, I'm not sure if it would be considered "minimal usage" to have another. There's this image of the cadets available, it doesn't have Master Chief, but readers could click on his article to see what he looks like. I added a caption to the poster to identify the characters in the mean time.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'm putting this on hold for 7 days because of the sourcing issues. OK, your reasoning on the Machinima.com and Machinima Prime sources makes sense, you've resolved the mega bloks issue, and I'm fine with the McFarlane Toys press release if there is nothing else available. Good work, I'm happy to pass this.

Thanks for the review and copyedit. James086^Talk 12:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.