Talk:Player One

Assessment

I am expecting just a bit more in the discussion of literary themes, style, genre, etc. (but don't know the sources, so I may be wrong) and I am not sure if the character list really helps the reader, it couldn't be integrated into the plot section more. Hope that helps. Cheers, Sadads (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Player One/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 23:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Well-written:

I made far and few grammatical corrections in my review of the article's content, after which I am satisfied that its general layout, prose, grammar, etc. satisfy MOS policies at a good level. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 06:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Verifiable with no original research:

The article cites several reputable, third-party sources, and leaves no indication that original research has been incorporated. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 06:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

(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

Broad in its coverage:

The article satisfactorily covers all ideal encyclopedic aspects of the topic, and nothing included appears trivial or otherwise unnecessary. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 06:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

There is no bias anywhere in the article's content. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 06:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

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

According to the 50 most recent edits to the article, no edit warring has taken place. The only reverts listed are for vandalism. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

THe sole image used in the article is of the cover of the book, and therefore essential for illustrative purposes. THe file for the image has a valid license and fair use rationale provided. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 06:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Upon completing the review of this article, I feel it is ready to be included with the Language and literature GAs. Congratulations! Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 06:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Chapters

"The book is divided into five chapters." However, the synopsis only describes the events of four chapters. Perhaps someone should fix this.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.184.247 (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)