Talk:Jet Force Gemini/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tezero (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Please fix the following things:

• "Jet Force Gemini is a third-person shooter that combines a mixture of classic shoot 'em up style gameplay in a free three dimensional environment." - Sounds a little awkward, you usually combine something and something, not a mixture of something in something.
• "spaceship pieces that would allow the player to get to the final stage." - I think you should remove "would".
• "in the "skeptical military world"; And Lupos, Jet Force Gemini's wardog mascot, which is always seen by the sides of Juno and Vela and has proven himself to be a beneficial companion." - Start a new sentence for Lupos. Also, what do you mean he is "seen by the sides of Juno and Vela"? Is he seen as a beneficial companion? Please rewrite this.
• "even Stargate - it was" - Change the "-" to a "–", even if that's how he originally put it.
• "the team, along with King Jeff, reassemble" - Should be "reassembles"
• "the team was out of options" - Keep consistent tense.

1. B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Remaining nitpicky things that aren't quite in the realm of grammar:

• "The control scheme introduced unique techniques that have never been seen since." - Never been seen since in what? Any Rare game? Any N64 game? Any game? Any game with twins? Please specify.
• "as the player can hang from most ledges, swim and occasionally fly using Jet packs." - Are you only able to fly occasionally, or do you only need to fly occasionally?
• "Most of the doors open automatically, but some can occasionally need a special action to be unlocked." - Please remove "can occasionally", unless you mean that there is a small number of doors that only sometimes need a special action.

1. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   If you are going to pursue further qualifications, you should probably get some more print sources. Magazine reviews, you know.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

3. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

4. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

5. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Please fix the writing issues I mentioned. Looks good otherwise. Tezero (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the article so quickly. I've fixed the issues you listed. I will see if I can get some print sources, though it will be hard because information on this game is fairly sparse, so I don't promise you anything. Anyway, if there is anything else that I should know, please let me now. <--Niwi3 (talk) 20:38, 07 March 2011 (CET)

Looks good. Time to pass it. Tezero (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)