Talk:Jane's Attack Squadron/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Electroguv (talk · contribs) 13:47, 6 December 2012 (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): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• The only issue here is the use of Combatsim. Are they reliable?

• I questioned this myself. Aside from the fact that flight simulator sites like this (and Avsim.com and Flightsim.com) were very well-respected back then, I have a few defenses for the source. First, Electronic Arts contacted them directly with the announcement regarding this game's cancellation. They didn't send this information to GameSpot, IGN, CGW or anywhere else: they sent it to Combatsim. That tells us a lot about its reliability. Second, this event was reported on by Eurogamer, guaranteeing that it really happened. Plus, for what it's worth (and it isn't worth much), I've seen Combatsim used as a source in the GA FreeSpace 2. I hope that's good enough. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• One more thing: Flightsim.com reported in 2001 that Combatsim was getting 14 million page views a month. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

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, where possible and appropriate.

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

Overall:

Pass/Fail:

• I'll pass the article when you deal with the Combatsim issue. Electroguv (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review. I hope my defense of Combatsim is good enough. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Given the above facts, Combatsim is indeed reliable. I've listed the article as a GA. Electroguv (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)