Talk:The Punisher (1993 video game)/GA1
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Ugog Nizdast (talk · contribs) 13:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Nominator: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 10:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Hey there, I'll be reviewing this article. Expect this to finish within a week or so. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Article looks good, I'll go through it section-wise and see if I can find anything -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Article passes, all criteria checked. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
- Comments
- Gameplay-> There are two challengeable statements here which I shall tag. It's not that I dispute them...just for verification's sake, I think it would be better if you add those inline cites there.
- Found a source for one, but couldn't find one for the other. I doubt one exists, and the statement wasn't really important anyway, so I just removed it. Freikorp (talk) 12:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Ok aside from this, is there no source which mention their ability to throw grenades? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Turns out the AllGame reference mentions the ability to use grenades, i've added that weapon to the article. Freikorp (talk) 13:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Ok aside from this, is there no source which mention their ability to throw grenades? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Plot and characters->
looks fine - Development and release-> -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The only thing which seems like an issue is the reliance on sources which look like fansites to me, but as long as the "Reception" section has reliable sources I don't feel that's going to be a hurdle.
Suggestion: Aside this review, I added the archive link to one reference which you rely heavily on, why don't you try it for the others? In future, if those links go dead, that would be a problem. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- I've never added archive links before; i'll look into it. Also I probably should have told you earlier, I didn't write the article. I came across it, thought it was almost at GA quality, and made numerous copyedits before nominating it myself. The user who did all the hard work has since retired from editing. Freikorp (talk) 13:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I've seen that in the history. It is good to that you nominated this to fulfill that retired user's legacy
. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I've seen that in the history. It is good to that you nominated this to fulfill that retired user's legacy
- Reception -> According to Template:Video game reviews, you should avoid adding references which are not used in the "Reception" section. I see that AllGame and GamePower are not used and but added to the table. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done. I've added these references to the reception section. Freikorp (talk) 13:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done. I've added these references to the reception section. Freikorp (talk) 13:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Lead ->
- A sentence from the Gameplay section would complete it in my opinion.
- Also, notice how most post-2000 reviews praise it while the one contemporary review (Next Generation) 'lambaste' it? I think it would be fair to mention "post-2000" somewhere in the statement "...was acclaimed by critics, being often regarded as one of the best titles in the beat 'em up genre and one of the best video game comic book adaptations of all time", sounds fair? The review is almost done. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- Added a sentence from the gameplay section and clarified that reviews were from the 2010s decade. :) Freikorp (talk) 05:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- Added a sentence from the gameplay section and clarified that reviews were from the 2010s decade. :) Freikorp (talk) 05:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- A sentence from the Gameplay section would complete it in my opinion.
Okay just two more minor issues. One: The infobox mentions quite a few names in the credits but this seems to be unsourced and not mentioned in the article; use your discretion in removing or keeping these. Two: The content sourced in the reception to The Nerdist site almost directly quotes the entire single para considering there just that talking about the game. In the strictest sense, this could be considered as a COPYVIO, suggest you trim down that part.
Alright, I pass this article. Congratulations! and now let me finish doing its paperwork. Good day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for your review :). Freikorp (talk) 02:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)