Talk:Music of Red Dead Redemption 2
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Sjones23 in topic GA Review
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Music of Red Dead Redemption 2 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find video game sources: "Music of Red Dead Redemption 2" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
 | Music of Red Dead Redemption 2 has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
 | Music of Red Dead Redemption 2 is part of the Red Dead Redemption 2 series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 10, 2019. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that players are only likely to hear around one-third of all the music created for Red Dead Redemption 2 in a standard playthrough? | ||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | |||||||||||||
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Music of Red Dead Redemption 2/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: CR4ZE (talk · contribs) 15:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
If I'm taking on the main article, it makes sense that I'd continue with a review of this sub-article as well. I'll get comments to you on this after I'm finished there. CR4ZE (t • c) 15:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, CR4ZE! Are you still able to take this one on? – Rhain ☔ 23:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
This might be time to get a second opinion since the original nominator has not edited since December. GamerPro64 17:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'll take over from here on out. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Here are my thoughts.
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- I think it looks good to me. It's a pass. Good work. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail: